TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Monarch Butterfly]

Got this through Google AI Overview...

In Toronto, the cycle time for traffic signals varies depending on the intersection, but generally falls within a range of 60 to 90 seconds; with the City of Toronto adjusting timings based on traffic volume and patterns at each location, aiming to balance the needs of pedestrians, motorists, and public transit.

Key points about Toronto traffic signal timings:

• Minimum pedestrian walk time: The standard "walk" time is set at a minimum of 7 seconds.
• Left turn signal duration: A minimum of 6 seconds is allocated for a left-turn green arrow.
• Signal timing adjustments: The City reviews signal timings based on public requests and traffic conditions at specific intersections.

To get specific information about signal timing at a particular intersection in Toronto, you can contact the City of Toronto directly.

A bus or streetcar's dwell time can be extended by 90 seconds because of a red signal light. That means an additional 1 1/2 minute added to the run, for each traffic signal. So if a bus or streetcar comes to a nearside stop, and the passengers have disembarked and people entered, but the traffic signal turns red just as the doors close, they have to wait another one and a half minutes.

 

[T3G]

It is hard to imagine that setting -5 as a metric for running "on time" was done for any other reasons than to cook the numbers, in a system that has headways superior to 3 minutes on many services.

The fact that running +1 was considered on time is also farcical. There is no reason why a transit service should EVER run hot. Ever. End.

 

[Northern Light]

It is hard to imagine that setting -5 as a metric for running "on time" was done for any other reasons than to cook the numbers, in a system that has headways superior to 3 minutes on many services.

The fact that running +1 was considered on time is also farcical. There is no reason why a transit service should EVER run hot. Ever. End.

Prior to +1/.-5, the old metric was +3/-3.

So they simply maintained the six minutes, but shifted from 3 early, 3 late to 1 early, 5 late.

I don't think there was great thought put into it other than buses really shouldn't leave 3 minutes early, and we don't want to have a fight over reducing the 6 minute window.

To be clear, I think they were wrong, and a change to 0 early/3 late was the reasonable path forward. We're inching that way, but more work needed.

Of course, its not just about the metric. Its about the fact that the TTC only measures that metric at terminal points, and not mid-route.

Its also not just about correct metrics, but about service management to ensure you're actually meeting them.

 

[christiesplits]

I’m curious to see the January ridership figures.

I suspect some employers increased their in-office requirements starting on January 1st, which could explain why the TTC feels busier lately during rush hour.

 

[evandyk]

I’m curious to see the January ridership figures.

I suspect some employers increased their in-office requirements starting on January 1st, which could explain why the TTC feels busier lately during rush hour.

I mentioned in another thread that the Path seems busier too than it has been, at least from Tuesday-Thursday.

 

[drum118]

Service changes
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ttc/bgrd/backgroundfile-252579.pdf

 

[evandyk]

I’m curious to see the January ridership figures.

I suspect some employers increased their in-office requirements starting on January 1st, which could explain why the TTC feels busier lately during rush hour.

I wonder if this is more of a trend?

CIBC calls some corporate bankers back to the office full-time

Canada's fifth largest lender is following in the footsteps of JPMorgan in calling workers back to the office five days a week. Read on.

financialpost.com

 

[Jonny5]

I wonder if this is more of a trend?

CIBC calls some corporate bankers back to the office full-time

Canada's fifth largest lender is following in the footsteps of JPMorgan in calling workers back to the office five days a week. Read on.

financialpost.com

An important distinction here is the type of employee being called back.
I'm willing to bet their "capital-markets bankers" being called back have 20 to 25 vacation days per year (ie. an entire month off), they travel a lot for work so they aren't in the office anyway those days, and they have generous leave and benefit packages.
And after all that they probably can still have one or two WFH days per month because most banks require that for business continuity purposes, meaning you prove you are capable of working from outside the office to meet regulator requirements.

 

[Bojaxs]

Why do we tolerate this nonsense?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1883614011763363962

 

[T3G]

Because no one, rightly, wants to get into a confrontation with a possibly violent criminal.

 

[nfitz]

Because no one, rightly, wants to get into a confrontation with a possibly violent criminal.

Pish.

People need to act.

 

[T3G]

Pish.

People need to act.

For the same reason I don't think that TTC drivers should be obliged to enforce fares, I also don't think that regular riders are under any obligation to police asocial behaviour. The people who engage in said behaviour are frequently violent and/or strung out on drugs, and the average person is not trained in any way to respond to such a situation.

Maybe if you're built like a mountain and trained in some kind of martial art (and wearing a bulletproof vest for good measure), then you can think about engaging in vigilante justice on the TTC. For anyone without the physique of a bouncer, they would be idiotic to even think about it. The only thing the average private citizen should be expected to do is to hit the yellow alarm if they see something untoward going on, and let someone else - who, one hopes, has the training to do so - deal with it.

Life isn't a John Wick movie, and people intervening in dangerous situations without the training and equipment to do so have gotten themselves hurt or killed.

 

[Northern Light]

For the same reason I don't think that TTC drivers should be obliged to enforce fares, I also don't think that regular riders are under any obligation to police asocial behaviour. The people who engage in said behaviour are frequently violent and/or strung out on drugs, and the average person is not trained in any way to respond to such a situation.

Up to a point, I'm sympathetic w/this argument, but I do think it needs to be situational.

If we're going to insist that no one can ever call out anti-social behavior unless they are either 'John Wick' or willing to press the alarm and potentially hold up an entire train of people for 20 minutes, then too much ill behavior will proliferate.

Taking a pass on saying something for a minor transgression of etiquette is fair; and so is avoiding a direct confrontation with someone who appears unstable or dangerous.

But there is a space between there, and letting everything go.

I let a lot of people go when are openly (no earbuds) playing music on their phone, even though I consider that irksome, and rude, because I weigh the costs of intervention vs the nuisance value of non-intervention.

On the other hand, I've told people to get their feet off the seats more than once.........

And last year, there was someone who was definitely unstable getting up in the face of a female passenger and clearly scaring her. I stood up, inserted myself between them and backed him up off the train. I'm not a hero, it was a move that carried risk, it was also the right thing to do, and I'm not particularly young, nor a martial artist.

But passivity to excess is as corrosive to society as constantly inserting yourself into the business of others.

 

[Mr.Tang]

I tiny minority of individuals who can not fit in with the most basic of society's norms cost massive disruption, cost and harm to the other 99%. Whether on transit, in our emergency rooms, public spaces or crime. If we dont do something moderately more forceful on the issue - I think a politician will come along and get mass approval for doing something maximally forceful on the issue. It feels like a cross between a zombie apocalypse movie and the Weimar republic.

 

[evandyk]

An important distinction here is the type of employee being called back.
I'm willing to bet their "capital-markets bankers" being called back have 20 to 25 vacation days per year (ie. an entire month off), they travel a lot for work so they aren't in the office anyway those days, and they have generous leave and benefit packages.
And after all that they probably can still have one or two WFH days per month because most banks require that for business continuity purposes, meaning you prove you are capable of working from outside the office to meet regulator requirements.

Certainly there are a bunch of reasons that investment bankers are more likely to be told to work in the office five days a week than other workers. The investment banks led the trend in New York (to the extent you can call it a trend, since hybrid work is completely dominant now and that isn't likely to change). But it may be an indication more companies are requiring an additional day for people or are likely to in the near future.