News   Dec 23, 2025
 717     3 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 1.7K     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 2.6K     1 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Con't from above:

Most of the Dawes route is not subject to serious congestion but there are two other points at which it can be an issue. One is Dawes approaching Ferris (the Victoria Park intersection). Cars here routinely back up in PM Peak and weekend mid-days up 300 meters. This occurs primarily because the capacity of Victoria Park between Dawes and St. Clair is constrained. While tweaking of signal times might help, there are 2 other key measures that could provide additional capacity.

1) Remove street parking on VP from Dawes to St. Clair. Parking is legal adjacent to the current retail during off-peak periods, and is impactful at those times, but also results in cars overstaying/stopping during peak periods.

1766767868024.png


2), In the above photo, you can see the beginning of the left-turn lane for St. Clair Avenue (NB to WB).

Two problems occur here with one set of movements, leftturns at Glencrest and to the strip plaza on the west side of VP here.

1766767908864.png


Forcing the plaza to be RIRO (right-in, right-out) onto Victoria Park and blocking all left turns to/from VP from the southerly plaza entrance to Glencrest would result in significantly better traffic flow which
would expedite the Victoria Park bus, and indirectly the Dawes bus by getting cars off Dawes Road and onto Victoria Park more quickly. It would also free up froom to add 1 more car length to the left turn lane further alleviating congestion.

***

The remaining congestion point is St. Clair EB on appropach to VP, primarily in evening peak service. That one is more challenging to address, particularly prior to total intersection reconstruction. (the intersection is offset which makes changes difficult).

***

The issue of boarding is only an issue at very busy stops, perhaps 2-3 per direction at peak times. But each stop, results in at least 15s more dwell time than needed, and up 30s due to the boarding procedures earlier noted.

***

The impacts of the changes I noted above could reasonably achieve the following:

Looking at afternoon peak, it would be possible with the current 5 buses, to run a 35 minute schedule, with a 5 minute terminal time.
This turns a scheduled service of every 10 minutes into an every 7 minute service. Which is a significant increase in capacity with zero net new vehicles.

Not every route in the system has that amount of wasted potential; but note, I didn't propose to cut a single stop location, to add TSP anywhere, to eliminate one traffic light, or establish 1M of new reserved transit lane.
Which is to say, many routes will have comparable gains available by similar or other means.

Just by procuring proper vehicles, operationalizing better boarding policies, assertively tackling the left turn question, and parking where its obstructive to service, and tightening schedules, its not a stretch to imagine a benefit akin to 20% fleet expansion (or greater).

Add driving the spare ratio back down to 15% and you get a range of 25-30% more effective capacity with zero net new vehicles.

I also ignored the issue of deadheading here as it would represent a material cost to re-open an existing, dis-used garage, and/or develop a new one for the purpose of cutting deadhead time.
 
Last edited:
So basically the whole line on line 1 is a slow zone from Wellesley to Eglinton. How is this allowed?
The part from Bloor to Eglinton i'm guessing is probably transit control telling operators to reduce speeds, due to whatever winter time concerns they have (ie: leaves on tracks, icy rails, etc). I wouldnt be surprised if the Davisville derailment incident back from February made them implement more "safefy" precautions (ie: slower operations when there's an ounce of snow on the track).

I'm tempted to go off on the TTC with their over-cautiousness to everything, but I want to end 2025 on a positive note.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T3G
The part from Bloor to Eglinton i'm guessing is probably transit control telling operators to reduce speeds, due to whatever winter time concerns they have (ie: leaves on tracks, icy rails, etc). I wouldnt be surprised if the Davisville derailment incident back from February made them implement more "safefy" precautions (ie: slower operations when there's an ounce of snow on the track).

I'm tempted to go off on the TTC with their over-cautiousness to everything, but I want to end 2025 on a positive note.
Then why do they travel slowly between ST Clair and Summerhill? Is it because the trains ahead are holding up traffic ?
 
The part from Bloor to Eglinton i'm guessing is probably transit control telling operators to reduce speeds, due to whatever winter time concerns they have (ie: leaves on tracks, icy rails, etc). I wouldnt be surprised if the Davisville derailment incident back from February made them implement more "safefy" precautions (ie: slower operations when there's an ounce of snow on the track).

I'm tempted to go off on the TTC with their over-cautiousness to everything, but I want to end 2025 on a positive note.
I don’t get why we have this insane risk averse safety culture yet we had a derailment that closed a line. It’s not just the TTC miway is the only agency in the world that decided to block off open seats.

 
Then why do they travel slowly between ST Clair and Summerhill? Is it because the trains ahead are holding up traffic ?
Part of the reason can be due to train traffic because of transit control's directive.

Generally speaking though, the TTC has a history of ordering operators to travel slow throughout this stretch and other open-cut sections when there's inclement weather. The stretch is trenched and covered and there's no inclement weather today I know, but TTC isnt really known for optimizing operations on a decent weather days either.

All to say, dont expect them to do optimize the line when they're ordering trains to slow down all over the network. It's something that they've shown time and time again, that they arent capable/arent interested in doing in the name of "safety".
 
The part from Bloor to Eglinton i'm guessing is probably transit control telling operators to reduce speeds, due to whatever winter time concerns they have (ie: leaves on tracks, icy rails, etc). I wouldnt be surprised if the Davisville derailment incident back from February made them implement more "safefy" precautions (ie: slower operations when there's an ounce of snow on the track).

I'm tempted to go off on the TTC with their over-cautiousness to everything, but I want to end 2025 on a positive note.
No, you're wrong. I have it on very good authority, from people who definitively know all about transit, and may even have travelled elsewhere to see how transit works there, that only LRTs are subject to delays from inclement weather and/or overcautiousness. Whatever you think it is that you saw, you are wrong. To even suggest that subways are less than perfect means you are engaging in a hate crime against the proletarians who live out in the suburbs, who deserve subways, subways, subways everywhere, and not those ugly, slow, expensive LRTs.



/s, if that wasn't incredibly obvious

---
To the best of my knowledge, the policy during inclement weather is to run at 30 km/h in the open cut sections. Line 2 trains in the east end were doing the same thing today. And hey, you know, if this was only during actively inclement weather, I might even be inclined to be forgiving, shit happens - but on the day that the Finch LRT opened, there was no snow falling, the roads were clear, but the speed restrictions in the open cut north of Eglinton West were still present. Is the criteria for triggering these restrictions the physical presence of any snow, no matter how dormant? God help us if so. It's a mystery to me that we haven't been able to figure out, in this country, a balance between Dickensian child labour in factories and jumping at the very presence of our own shadows.
 
---
To the best of my knowledge, the policy during inclement weather is to run at 30 km/h in the open cut sections. Line 2 trains in the east end were doing the same thing today. And hey, you know, if this was only during actively inclement weather, I might even be inclined to be forgiving, shit happens - but on the day that the Finch LRT opened, there was no snow falling, the roads were clear, but the speed restrictions in the open cut north of Eglinton West were still present. Is the criteria for triggering these restrictions the physical presence of any snow, no matter how dormant? God help us if so. It's a mystery to me that we haven't been able to figure out, in this country, a balance between Dickensian child labour in factories and jumping at the very presence of our own shadows.
It's not necessarily 30km/h, but there is a policy in place to limit speeds on most of the open-cut areas - it is an operational policy on the BD, and a physical one on the YUS as it is enforced by the signal system. This is to reduce flatspots as braking distances are greatly increased when wet leaves and ice are present.

The reasoning is due to Alstom, the signal system vendor, telling the TTC that the system will cause a train to fail-out if the train gets too far out of sync with the signal system. While the system is designed to re-sync the trains at all wayside beacons, this doesn't happen regularly for an unknown reason. So Alstom told the TTC to run the trains "more carefully" so that it doesn't happen.

Dan
 
That is such a BS response. The TTC should demand Alstom to get the signalling correct considering they are the client paying for an expected product. This bending backwards just shows how pathetic the TTC has gotten.

At the same time, heads should be rolling at the TTC as there was no due diligence to actually fix the problem and just slap speed restrictions as a response to all the problems. This self sabotaging needs to stop ASAP. There should be no reason why commuting times should get longer when considering how lengthy existing times already are. Public transit needs to be fast considering how poor congestion is in the city. This is the only way to draw people from automobile usage.
 
Last edited:
It's not necessarily 30km/h, but there is a policy in place to limit speeds on most of the open-cut areas - it is an operational policy on the BD, and a physical one on the YUS as it is enforced by the signal system. This is to reduce flatspots as braking distances are greatly increased when wet leaves and ice are present.

The reasoning is due to Alstom, the signal system vendor, telling the TTC that the system will cause a train to fail-out if the train gets too far out of sync with the signal system. While the system is designed to re-sync the trains at all wayside beacons, this doesn't happen regularly for an unknown reason. So Alstom told the TTC to run the trains "more carefully" so that it doesn't happen.

Dan
I feel like we have gone backwards. We use to have more snow and no automatic train control with less advanced trains and we didn't have any problems.

Does this slow order apply to the open cut section between Caledonia and Sheppard West as well?
 
Last edited:
Con't from above:

Most of the Dawes route is not subject to serious congestion but there are two other points at which it can be an issue. One is Dawes approaching Ferris (the Victoria Park intersection). Cars here routinely back up in PM Peak and weekend mid-days up 300 meters. This occurs primarily because the capacity of Victoria Park between Dawes and St. Clair is constrained. While tweaking of signal times might help, there are 2 other key measures that could provide additional capacity.

1) Remove street parking on VP from Dawes to St. Clair. Parking is legal adjacent to the current retail during off-peak periods, and is impactful at those times, but also results in cars overstaying/stopping during peak periods.

View attachment 705146

2), In the above photo, you can see the beginning of the left-turn lane for St. Clair Avenue (NB to WB).

Two problems occur here with one set of movements, leftturns at Glencrest and to the strip plaza on the west side of VP here.

View attachment 705147

Forcing the plaza to be RIRO (right-in, right-out) onto Victoria Park and blocking all left turns to/from VP from the southerly plaza entrance to Glencrest would result in significantly better traffic flow which
would expedite the Victoria Park bus, and indirectly the Dawes bus by getting cars off Dawes Road and onto Victoria Park more quickly. It would also free up froom to add 1 more car length to the left turn lane further alleviating congestion.

***

The remaining congestion point is St. Clair EB on appropach to VP, primarily in evening peak service. That one is more challenging to address, particularly prior to total intersection reconstruction. (the intersection is offset which makes changes difficult).

***

The issue of boarding is only an issue at very busy stops, perhaps 2-3 per direction at peak times. But each stop, results in at least 15s more dwell time than needed, and up 30s due to the boarding procedures earlier noted.

***

The impacts of the changes I noted above could reasonably achieve the following:

Looking at afternoon peak, it would be possible with the current 5 buses, to run a 35 minute schedule, with a 5 minute terminal time.
This turns a scheduled service of every 10 minutes into an every 7 minute service. Which is a significant increase in capacity with zero net new vehicles.

Not every route in the system has that amount of wasted potential; but note, I didn't propose to cut a single stop location, to add TSP anywhere, to eliminate one traffic light, or establish 1M of new reserved transit lane.
Which is to say, many routes will have comparable gains available by similar or other means.

Just by procuring proper vehicles, operationalizing better boarding policies, assertively tackling the left turn question, and parking where its obstructive to service, and tightening schedules, its not a stretch to imagine a benefit akin to 20% fleet expansion (or greater).

Add driving the spare ratio back down to 15% and you get a range of 25-30% more effective capacity with zero net new vehicles.

I also ignored the issue of deadheading here as it would represent a material cost to re-open an existing, dis-used garage, and/or develop a new one for the purpose of cutting deadhead time.
This was really informative, thank you! Just goes to show how much low-hanging fruit this City has, yet no one seems to be able to pick it so to speak.
 

Back
Top