News   Jul 15, 2024
 743     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 897     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 631     0 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

My point is not that the subway network is in other cities, it’s that a very large part of its riders aren’t Torontonians. It’s used by people from all over the GTA and beyond to get to work from their homes outside the city to work in Toronto. It’s a regional asset whether you agree with if the province should manage it or not.

It’s an asset of regional importance, yes. This could be said of a lot of services and infrastructure in Toronto though. Our roads are an asset of likely even more regional importance than the subways, for example. Our roads surely facilitate several times more regional trips than the subway does.
 
Last edited:
It’s an asset of regional importance, yes. This could be said of a lot of services and infrastructure in Toronto though. Our roads are an asset of likely even more regional importance than the subways, for example.

That brings up a whole discussion on why the City of Toronto should be funding such expensive regional infrastructure. At the very least, the Gardiner should be provincially funded, and I’m willing to consider the idea of the subway network merging with GO if we can make sense of local transit (buses and streetcars) working together with the rail network with regards to both seamless transfers for riders and revenue sharing.
 
That brings up a whole discussion on why the City of Toronto should be funding such expensive regional infrastructure. At the very least, the Gardiner should be provincially funded, and I’m willing to consider the idea of the subway network merging with GO if we can make sense of local transit (buses and streetcars) working together with the rail network with regards to both seamless transfers for riders and revenue sharing.

Most formost, I'm not at all comfortable with "its of regional importance" being a justification for provincial control of an asset or service. Toronto is the centre of the GTHA. Naturally, a lot of the decisions it makes will be or regional importance. Toronto Police Services, Toronto Traffic Services, Toronto Hydro and Toronto City Planning are services of immense regional importance, for example. If regional importance is the threshold for provincial ownership, then you need to be prepared for Torontonians to have a lot less influence on how their city is run.

But going back to roads, the Gardiner and DVP are not the only two roads of regional importance though. Roads such as Lakeshore, Bloor, Dundas, Six Points Interchange, Yonge, Bay, Finch, Kingston Road (etc...) all carry large volumes of regional traffic; certainly a lot more than the Gardiner does. And like the Gardiner, these roads are in aggregative very expensive to build and maintain. Why shouldn't they also be subject to provincial ownership?

The benefit that Torotonians get from municipal ownership, is that we get to control the asset. The overwhelming majority of the users of this infrastructure are Tortonians. This infrastructure runs through our neighbourhoods, and has a disproportionate impact on our quality of life. Accordingly, we deserve a disproportionate say on how this infrastructure is used. The cost of this is that we have to pay for it.

The same argument applies to our subway network as well.
 
My point is not that the subway network is in other cities, it’s that a very large part of its riders aren’t Torontonians. It’s used by people from all over the GTA and beyond to get to work from their homes outside the city to work in Toronto. It’s a regional asset whether you agree with if the province should manage it or not.

It’s an asset of regional importance, yes. This could be said of a lot of services and infrastructure in Toronto though. Our roads are an asset of likely even more regional importance than the subways, for example. Our roads surely facilitate several times more regional trips than the subway does.

That brings up a whole discussion on why the City of Toronto should be funding such expensive regional infrastructure. At the very least, the Gardiner should be provincially funded, and I’m willing to consider the idea of the subway network merging with GO if we can make sense of local transit (buses and streetcars) working together with the rail network with regards to both seamless transfers for riders and revenue sharing.

Your posts illustrate why I think a single regional transportation agency should be controlling all of this. The fact that we even need to discuss which municipality owns what and which residents cross a boundary is part of the problem. Municipal boundaries are irrelevant to how people travel and they should be irrelevant to how we build and operate transit.
 
Your posts illustrate why I think a single regional transportation agency should be controlling all of this. The fact that we even need to discuss which municipality owns what and which residents cross a boundary is part of the problem. Municipal boundaries are irrelevant to how people travel and they should be irrelevant to how we build and operate transit.

Ease of travel isn’t the only consideration though. That’s how we end up with major roads, like Eglinton and Spadina, turned into expressways, and roads like King or Queen turned into one-ways to improve traffic flow. These are things that would harm the communities they run through. Regional travel considerations must not overwhelm the vitality of local communities.
 
Ease of travel isn’t the only consideration though. That’s how we end up with major roads, like Eglinton and Spadina, turned into expressways, and roads like King or Queen turned into one-ways to improve traffic flow. These are things that would harm the communities they run through. Regional travel considerations must not overwhelm the vitality of local communities.
Having a region-wide transportation authority doesn't mean that the primary consideration would be ease of travel for cars. In Vancouver for example, quite a few of the major roads owned by Translink have bus lanes and generous sidewalks. Translink also funds local road improvements, bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, and produces a region-wide cycling map. Similarly, Transport for London operates relatively narrow urban roads with bus and bike lanes and wide sidewalks. They also have a tube & rail map that's the equivalent of the TTC subway and GO Transit maps combined.

I see no evidence that either city's regional road governance has made them any more concerned with moving cars than the City of Toronto.
 
Most formost, I'm not at all comfortable with "its of regional importance" being a justification for provincial control of an asset or service. Toronto is the centre of the GTHA. Naturally, a lot of the decisions it makes will be or regional importance. Toronto Police Services, Toronto Traffic Services, Toronto Hydro and Toronto City Planning are services of immense regional importance, for example. If regional importance is the threshold for provincial ownership, then you need to be prepared for Torontonians to have a lot less influence on how their city is run.

But going back to roads, the Gardiner and DVP are not the only two roads of regional importance though. Roads such as Lakeshore, Bloor, Dundas, Six Points Interchange, Yonge, Bay, Finch, Kingston Road (etc...) all carry large volumes of regional traffic; certainly a lot more than the Gardiner does. And like the Gardiner, these roads are in aggregative very expensive to build and maintain. Why shouldn't they also be subject to provincial ownership?

The benefit that Torotonians get from municipal ownership, is that we get to control the asset. The overwhelming majority of the users of this infrastructure are Tortonians. This infrastructure runs through our neighbourhoods, and has a disproportionate impact on our quality of life. Accordingly, we deserve a disproportionate say on how this infrastructure is used. The cost of this is that we have to pay for it.

The same argument applies to our subway network as well.
@TheTigerMaster - the province owned and maintained many of these prior to the municipal amalgamations of 1999. Lakeshore Blvd, and Kingston Road were signed as Hwy 2. Dundas St was Hwy 5, and Yonge had a sign at the base referring to Hwy 11. University Ave was signed as 11A. The provincial Queen Elizabeth Way started much closer in - maybe at the Humber hump.

Everything old appears to be new again.
 
The stopping position of the TTC subway train (the counterclockwise / westward movement) stops at highly variable positioning at TTC Union station.

I walked down the platform and found that the number of constricted doors varies by as much as 2. There is an ideal train stopping position that has 2 fewer constricted doors.

Perhaps TTC could optimize precision berth stopping position to speed up passenger embarkation/disembarkation. At peak, there's a bottleneck that actually adds 5 seconds to boarding depending on exact train stopping position.

Unconstricted stopping position
0E3337FD-0B10-473E-B817-F50E890C20B6.jpeg


Constricted stopping position (there's a second simultaneous blockage down the platform too)
7A27C7A2-F194-43D5-AB1A-E765B422D248.jpeg


Same standing position, same pillar, different position for same open door (7th set of doors from eastmost end of train)! There are other mini-blockages down the platform too, that increase/decrease in number, so there's an optimized stopping position at Union (eastward-moving trains, from Yonge towards University) that has 2 fewer blocked doors (total).

Two consecutive trains, minutes apart -- but stopped several meters different. These are offpeak photos, but the TTC train empties/fills noticeably faster (on average) at certain berth positions than others -- this actually can matter at peak period once the trains are made to run at sub-2-minute headways.

Often passengers wait in the cubby depressions (walls) between the pillars, or just around the pillars, blocking disembarking passengers, noticeably slowing passengers down. Blocking fewer doors overall speeds up the whole-station passenger flow slightly, saving 5-10 seconds at certain stopping positions -- not insignificant in the future era of sub-2-minute headways.

Also here's a generic diagram (non-TTC) that demonstrates train-positioning "Geometry Theory" (three door version). This still even applies to any subway system whose has stations with constricted stopping positions, and any number of doors (2, 3, 4) or coaches, it demonstrate the Geometry 101 concept.
429B6773-15CE-4846-B491-D82F57B7112B.jpeg

(Above is generic non-TTC diagram, but demonstrates the Geometry 101 concept of stopping-position optimization)

There's a lot of jiggle room (about 5 meters worth). Perhaps the automatic train control system can be precisely adjusted for optimal "fastest-peak-passenger-flow" train stopping position at TTC Union station.

It is amazing how much the train stopping position varies at Union station -- the ATC system can in theory be programmed to aim to stop at a very precise default berth position -- that optimizes for slightly faster commuter flows (disembarkers easily getting around embarkers -- versus constrictions preventing such).
 

Attachments

  • 7A27C7A2-F194-43D5-AB1A-E765B422D248.jpeg
    7A27C7A2-F194-43D5-AB1A-E765B422D248.jpeg
    153.9 KB · Views: 406
  • 0E3337FD-0B10-473E-B817-F50E890C20B6.jpeg
    0E3337FD-0B10-473E-B817-F50E890C20B6.jpeg
    152.3 KB · Views: 432
  • 429B6773-15CE-4846-B491-D82F57B7112B.jpeg
    429B6773-15CE-4846-B491-D82F57B7112B.jpeg
    260.3 KB · Views: 465
Last edited:
With Andy going to NYC now, how many of the current team he brought in will follow him to NYC???

Then, who every becomes CEO in 2018, may want to bring in some people who has worked for them in the past as well.

Who every becomes CEO, I hope they are willing to speak with a stronger voice and call a spade a spade. Overall, Andy did a great job and was looking forward to see what he would do next now a few monkeys were off his back that were place there before he arrived.
 
Having a region-wide transportation authority doesn't mean that the primary consideration would be ease of travel for cars. In Vancouver for example, quite a few of the major roads owned by Translink have bus lanes and generous sidewalks. Translink also funds local road improvements, bike lanes, pedestrian improvements, and produces a region-wide cycling map. Similarly, Transport for London operates relatively narrow urban roads with bus and bike lanes and wide sidewalks. They also have a tube & rail map that's the equivalent of the TTC subway and GO Transit maps combined.

I see no evidence that either city's regional road governance has made them any more concerned with moving cars than the City of Toronto.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong. I'm not against a regional transportation authority. Indeed I would love to see an agency as effective as Transport for London introduced to the GTHA. What I am against is regional transport that will be beholden to the interests of suburban constituents (I emphasize constituents and not commuters), that will either withhold or misdirect precious transit dollars. This is also why I remain 100% opposed to provincial ownership and operation of GTHA transit; the provincial government has too many competing interests at hand, and they might not have Toronto's best interests has heart. Ontario is a province of 12 million people, and Toronto represents just 3 million of them.

For every regional transport success story (such as TfL), we have a disaster, such as New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is largely under the control of New York State. The MTA has suffered from decades of underinvestment and neglect from the state government, making it one of the worst run and maintained large metro and transit systems in the world. I do not want the TTC and our various regional transportation agencies to degrade to that level. Unfortunately, the actions of the provincial government do not give me faith that they always have Toronto's best interests at heart (see the Harris government).

Any regional governance of transit in the GTHA must be in control of the commuters that are using the services. Not in control of Queen Park politicians that are beholden to interests far away from the GTHA, and not beholden to suburban commuters that never step foot into a bus or train. Anything less than this will have the initiative doomed to failure.
 
Last edited:
Really?

Some people can't tell fiction from reality. Just because it's possible to drive a Mercedes in a live subway tunnel in Mario Kart 8 does not mean that the same can be done in real life.

Look on the bright side at least they haven't had to saw a vehicle into pieces in order to remove it.
 
Your posts illustrate why I think a single regional transportation agency should be controlling all of this. The fact that we even need to discuss which municipality owns what and which residents cross a boundary is part of the problem. Municipal boundaries are irrelevant to how people travel and they should be irrelevant to how we build and operate transit.

The problem with this is that the GTA is too big geographically: such an agency would be unwieldy. Even now, YRT often cites the size of its service area as an operational difficulty.
 
The bright side WOULD be them sawing a vehicle into pieces!

Can you imagine the international media coverage?
And the poor spoiled brat stoned/drunk wildchild having to explain to the bank of Mom and Dad or face up to their asset being sawn to pieces?

Honestly. If you're too effed up at the end of the evening; face up to it and take an Uber.
 

Back
Top