Scarborough Subway Update: May 27, 2015

At its May 27, 2015, meeting, the TTC Board received a presentation from Rick Thompson, the Chief Project Manager for the Scarborough Subway Extension (SSE). This presentation is not yet online.

During the presentation, Thompson noted that the process of winnowing down nine alternative routes for the SSE was nearly complete, and that a report on the three short-listed options would be issued fairly soon.

The original nine proposals included two major groups. The first would see the north end of the line continue east from STC on alignments similar to the proposed Scarborough LRT crossing Sheppard at either Markham Road or Progress. Three routes were proposed to reach the existing SRT corridor:

  • Via the SRT as currently constructed.
  • Via Eglinton and Midland, then swinging back into the SRT right-of-way north of Eglinton (this would avoid reconstruction of Kennedy Station on a north-south alignment).
  • Via Eglinton and Midland, joining into the SRT alignment near the existing Midland Station.

The second group takes a north-south alignment through or past STC and all arrive at Sheppard and McCowan as their terminus:

  • A Midland/McCowan option would swing into the Gatineau hydro corridor south of Lawrence to link northeast to McCowan and then follow the McCowan route north.
  • A Brimley option would travel east on Eglinton, north on Brimley and then swing northeast through STC to McCowan.
  • A McCowan option would follow Eglinton to Brimley, then swing north via Danforth Road to McCowan. This was the original proposal approved by Council.
  • A Bellamy option would follow Eglinton to Bellamy, turn north, and then swing back to the northwest to reach the McCowan/STC station.
  • A Markham Road option would follow Eglinton to Markham Road (although the exact alignment east of Bellamy is unclear), then turn north and eventually back west to McCowan. This is the most roundabout of the possible routes.


Events overtook the plans, and a report on the shortlisted options that had gone privately to Councillors made its way into the media. The Star’s Jennifer Pagliaro reported that the three remaing options were the original McCowan alignment, the Bellamy alignment and the Midland route running straight north to meet the SRT corridor.


[Toronto Star, from City of Toronto]

Although the study area for the SSE extends east to Markham Road, that option did not make the cut. An obvious reason is that this takes the line too far out of the way adding substantially to the cost and to the travel time from Sheppard and STC down to Kennedy Station. Cost premiums of $600m and $1b have been suggested for the Bellamy and Markham Road alignments respectively.

Why go further east? The problem lies in Mayor Tory’s Smart Track plan in the GO corridor now shared with the SRT. If Smart Track provides frequent convenient service and, like the SRT, is part of the TTC fare system, then it will draw many riders from the SSE, riders who were used to justify the switch from LRT to subway technology in the first place. If the line is further east, advocates hope that it will draw its own demand by intercepting riders first. However, another part of the demand model concerns riders arriving from the north who contributed to the bump in demand estimates for the subway. These riders would come from the very north edge of Toronto and from Markham where any service in the GO corridor will be much more attractive than taking a bus south to a Sheppard/McCowan Station, let alone to STC if the subway is shortened as a cost-saving measure.

The Bellamy route is an odd choice because it runs through a low density area which shows no sign of imminent development. Midland is equally odd because it is closer to SmartTrack even than the McCowan route. Both are compromises that are attractive only if one accepts premises that are as much about politics as planning.

  • Bellamy moves the line further east at a comparatively modest cost (“only” another $600m), and may improve the SSE/ST ridership split a bit. This route also has a connection to GO’s Lake Shore East service at Eglinton Station, although the geometry of the location could make this tricky. How many GO customers would opt to ride to midtown via the subway rather than staying on their train to Union is worth investigation lest this connection be played up for more than it might actually deliver.
  • Midland is a variant on the scheme advanced by former Transportation Minister Glen Murray for the subway to follow the SRT corridor. That idea would have required a complete replacement of Kennedy Station and a multi-year shutdown. This is a face-saving alternative to retain the spirit of Murray’s proposal.

The existence of this report and its availability to the media raises serious questions about the context of the TTC presentation. At the very moment the TTC Board was told that the shortlist had not been finalized, not only had this been done but the information was in Councillors’ hands.

Estimates for subway projects run agound on the variety of factors that can affect costs including inflation, topography, geology, utilities and operational plans. The Council approval was based on an estimated cost to complete the project of $3.56-billion including inflation. Costs would be shared between Ottawa (19%), Queen’s Park (56%) and Toronto (26%). Any further cost is to Toronto’s account, and this makes the selection of options and features that could drive up the cost an important issue for Council.

The scheme as approved would be 7.6km long with three stations at Lawrence East, STC and Sheppard East using a fleet of seven trains (enough to operate every second train beyond Kennedy Station to Sheppard). Construction would begin in 2018 with completion in late 2023. Already there have been suggestions that a fourth station should be added at Brimley and Eglinton.

The estimated unit costs for construction are $180m/km plus about $200m/station. These are 2015 dollars and are subject to inflation.

To put these numbers in context, the Spadina extension to Vaughan is 8.6km long, and has 6 stations. That is $1.548b worth of running structure plus $1.2b worth of stations, plus ten trains at a cost of about $160m, for a total of roughly $3b. The actual budget for the extension is $2.6b reflecting the fact that some work was done in years past. In any event, the uninflated unit costs are in the ballpark. Things could easily get out of control if, for example, Councillors demand architectural monuments for their stations, or if the route is substantially extended.

Station cost estimates for the original scheme vary considerably:

  • Lawrence at $160m. This is a line station that would have no provision for parking. No turnback crossover structure would be provided.
  • STC at $200m. This station would include parking and a crossover.
  • Sheppard at $500m. This station would not be just a terminal, but would have tail tracks and storage tracks to provide an overnight home for the expanded fleet. Note that this cost will apply to whatever station becomes the terminal because the storage facility has to go somewhere.

The TTC had planned to undertake public consultation through the summer despite the fact that (as described in the presentation), the shortlisted corridors were still not known. Conversely, a final recommended alignment is supposed to come before Council in Fall 2015 as part of the larger package of studies on Smart Track, GO and the Downtown Relief Line.

All of this is moving with some haste in a “get it done” mode, although the entire process could run aground depending on the financial and ridership projections that will face Council. The TTC is already contracting for basic services such as tunnel design and project management with little defined as to scope of work because the alignment is unknown. The idea is to have everything in place to start work the moment there is an approved project. The scheme would then unfold in three major stages:

  • Up to 2016: Project startup, staffing, etc. Preliminary engineering and Transit Project Assessment.
  • 2016 to 2018: Property acquisition and design.
  • 2018 to 2023: Construction.

This schedule was described as very optimistic and it could be affected by factors such as unexpected conditions or substantial increase in scope (length, stations). Another factor that could complicate the process could be the extra time needed to design, tender and negotiate some form of P3 arrangement for project delivery. However, that mechanism is a prerequisite for federal funding, and is much beloved of Queen’s Park through its Infrastructure Ontario arm. The City and TTC would have to come up with a significant justification to avoid going the P3 route especially with the history of the Spadina project and the sense that somehow this could have been avoided with private sector expertise and some degree of “risk transfer” to a private partner.

When challenged on the speed at which the project appears to be building up steam, CEO Andy Byford replied that Council has directed the TTC to build a subway, and barring any change in that direction, he is proceeding to do this as quickly as possible. The consulting contracts that have been let so far (or are pending) are to be paid based on work actually done within an upset limit, and they have escape clauses should the TTC need to change plans based on political shifts.

Council will face the combined effects of any cost increases in the SSE, the potential bill for other transit projects, and major non-transit work such as the need to rebuild Toronto Community Housing stock, not to mention budgetary pressures in the 2016 cycle. This will all hit Council in Fall 2015.

Another Delay For Leslie Street (Updated)

Updated May 28, 2015 at 2:00 pm: Further information about the design of the track support structure has been added at the end of the article along with historical links.

The seemingly endless work to rebuild Leslie Street south of Queen as the access route to the new Leslie Barns hit another setback with the discovery that a section of track was installed at the wrong elevation. This affects the road profile, drainage patterns and the access to an adjacent condo where residents had expected they would be free of side effects beyond the nuisance of construction.

A surveying error by the contractor, Pomerlau Construction, who have responsibility for the entire Leslie Barns project, caused about 60m of track just north of Eastern Avenue to be installed roughly 9cm above the correct level.

To explain a bit about the structures involved, here are photos from the Leslie Street project.

The view below looks north on Leslie toward Eastern Avenue, and shows the “tub” form which was cast along the length of Leslie to hold the track structure. The purpose of this, as opposed to the usual base slab plus ties, is to distribute the load in a self-contained structure.


The next photo shows the same stretch (viewed from the middle of the road) with the track installed and concrete up to the railhead. Both of these photos were taken in fall 2014. (The track sitting on top of the road is stored here awaiting installation elsewhere in the project.)


A rather messy view of the “tub” under construction looking south to Eastern Avenue (the area behind the barricade in the photo above) on April 1, 2015. This gives a sense of the conditions residents have lived through during this project.


Here is a view looking north to Queen on May 14, 2015, showing the internal structure before the “tub” is concreted.


Finally, two views of the nearly completed structure in the same location taken on May 14, 2015. First looking south:


And then north. The affected condo is on the west (left) side of the street.


Recently, the TTC met with residents in the neighbourhood, and three options were on the table:

  1. Remove the portion of the track and the “tub” in which it rests and reinstall at a lower elevation. Concurrently repairs would be made to the parking ramp into the condo which was damaged during construction.
  2. Slice the tub walls to shorten this structure and adjust the track height accordingly.
  3. Raise the road grade. This was originally thought to be the simplest fix, but it would affect both the ramp into the condo’s parking garage and the drainage from the street.

Option 1 is the preferred choice, but it will delay the full reopening of Leslie Street by about 5 weeks. A final choice will be settled this week so that construction can begin as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, Leslie Barns itself is close to a year behind schedule, and only the similarly late delivery of Flexitys from Bombardier has prevented a storage crisis at the TTC’s carhouses. As things stand, two dozen cars are stored overnight at the CNE Loop to provide some elbow room for construction projects at the carhouses and space at Roncesvalles for the Flexitys now in service.

According to the CEO’s Report at the TTC Board Meeting of May 27, 2015:

The contract was awarded on April 12, 2012. The contract was initially expected to be completed in June 2014; however, construction delays have resulted in expected completion in 2015. TTC will have staged occupancy of the facility starting July 2015 and completion of the work is expected by Q4 2015. [p. 27]

The entire Leslie project has been plagued with problems from the outset including issues with site selection, the need for site remediation and relocation of a high-voltage hydro conduit, and the extensive set of utilities, including a very old water main, under Leslie Street. The project is well over budget, and shares with another major TTC project, the Spadina subway extension, questions about the degree to which conditions were properly understood before it was approved.

I will update this article as the story unfolds.

See also stories in the Globe & Mail and the Star.

Updated May 28: The following links show maps of the area before it was filled in to create the Port Lands were moved here from a reply in the comment thread.

Goad’s Insurance Maps for 1884 (key map for Toronto). With thanks to Nathan Ng for his excellent site indexing all of these maps.

Goad’s map of Leslieville and surrounding area

Wikipedia article on Ashbridge’s Bay with a map of the waterfront in 1906

Updated May 28 at 2:00 pm: The purpose of the “tub” track structure turns out to not be a function of load distribution on the soil below, but to act as a container for a “hockey puck” like substance that will provide vibration isolation between the track and the roadbed. This is similar to the design used on new subway lines where there is a layer of large discs between the concrete ties under the track and the floor of the tunnel.

The Lord Mayor Giveth, and the Lord Mayor Taketh Away

Two days ago, as I write this, Mayor John Tory accompanied by TTC Chair Josh Colle and TTC CEO Andy Byford held a press conference at the unlikely location of Kennedy and Progress to announce the next wave of service improvements funded through the 2015 Operating Budget.

Yes, this is the same Mayor Tory whose campaign rejected service improvements out of hand, not to mention the fact that they were not his idea, but Olivia Chow’s, his rival.

Presto Chango! Candidate Tory becomes Mayor and discovers that his predecessor Mayor Ford has stripped the TTC of valuable service. Maybe we should put it back, he declares, and so, golly gee, come June 21 much of what was lost will now be found on many streets of Toronto. As an extra bonus, there will be more night service!

Champagne all around! Well, maybe in small glasses.

No sooner does the TTC publish a report with the detailed list of changes, it also published a preview of the 2016 budget process in which we learn:

Submissions for the 2016 Budgets are due to the City in June. This is a very tight timeline and staff are currently preparing these budgets in accordance with the City submission requirements (guidelines have been received for the Capital budget and are pending for the Operating budgets) and in consideration of the following:
  • A City requirement for a 2% efficiency reduction in the net Operating budget (approximately $10-$11 million for TTC and $2 million for Wheel-Trans).
  • [Many other items which can be read in the report]

There are two small problems here:

  • Council has never passed any direction that agencies reduce their budgets (which in the TTC’s case means its subsidy requirement).
  • The TTC will require at least $100-million more to operate the system in 2016. This must come from subsidy, fares or some combination of the two.

Mayor Tory seems happy to use the TTC as a backdrop for self-promotion even though budget and service decisions actually rest with the TTC Board and with Council, but is careful not to mention that the TTC could actually face a funding cut in 2016.

A related problem faced by both the Mayor and the TTC is the city’s cap on borrowing which is linked to tax revenues. Debt service must not exceed 15% of the taxes (which account for only about 1/3 of the total city budget), and all of the borrowing room is spoken for out into the early 2020s. Part of Tory’s reversal earlier this year included the recognition that the TTC needs more buses. Who is paying for them? The riders through the farebox, not a capital subsidy from the City or Queen’s Park. Here is a summary of where the extra $95m in City subsidy is going for 2015:


Part of the cost for new buses will show up in 2016 and will be funded, under current plans, from fares again. However, there is a limit to the amount of capital spending that can be sustained from the farebox considering that the TTC’s annual capital budget (excluding special projects such as subway extensions) run to $1-billion or so, roughly the same as all of the fare revenue.

The costs shown for many items above are partial year costs. For example, the service improvements that will come into play in September will only operate for 4 months in 2015, but for 12 months in 2016 and beyond. Money to pay for full year service has to come from somewhere.

The sad and outrageous truth is that Mayor Tory is happy to bask in the warmth of publicity for better transit service, but his budgetary goals work in utterly the opposite direction.

In August 2014, CEO Andy Byford produced a report listing all of the possibilities for improving the TTC together with their cost. For his troubles, he was the subject of vitriol from, among others, the Tory camp who felt the TTC was endorsing Olivia Chow’s transit platform. Almost all of the recommendations subsequently became TTC and Tory policy.

The TTC Board should insist that  Byford produce budget options that don’t acquiesce meekly and implement the Tory cut, but actively show what could be achieved if only the TTC had better funding. That’s what the TTC Board and its Chair are supposed to do, not simply to provide a photo op every time John Tory wants publicity.


TTC Proposes Service Restorations and Expanded Blue Night Network (Updated)

The TTC Board will consider two reports at its meeting on May 27, 2015 relating to service improvements announced jointly by TTC Chair Josh Colle and Mayor John Tory on May 24, 2015.

Most of the 2011 service cuts rammed through by former Mayor Rob Ford and former Chair Karen Stintz will be restored. The “greater good” of the system, a phrase beloved of Ms. Stintz, clearly no longer includes slashing transit service.

One rather contorted paragraph in the report gives an insight into the process by which routes got on the 2011 list:

The use of the productivity standard of boardings per service hour, commonly used throughout the transit industry, began in 2011 at the TTC. It was first used to identify the services that were recommended for removal as part of the budget cuts in that year. The standard used at that time was 15 boardings per service hour or, in some cases where there was a long walk to alternate service, the standard was reduced to ten boardings per service hour. For 2015, the boardings per service hour standard has been continued, but at the lower, currently-affordable level of nine boardings per service hour. The calculation of boardings has also been simplified, and now counts all customers on the entire route or branch section, as appropriate. Previously, a more-detailed and labour-intensive evaluation was used to try to separate and weight differently the boardings that would be made at unique stops, at stops with intersecting routes, and at stops along common sections of multiple routes. The new, simplified method of counting substantially all passengers is simpler to apply and understand, and allows the threshold level to be lowered.

In other words, the 2011 evaluations didn’t actually count passengers, but applied a formula and process to determine which routes made the cut. It is no wonder that some riders and Councillors were baffled to see routes with real live riders, but be told that there were not enough of them.

One oddity is that Kingston Road 12B and 12C (the branches that do not serve Variety Village) will not be operated at late evenings. However, the proposed all night service on Kingston Road will take the 12B/C path and bypass Variety Village leaving a gap in service between early evening and overnight service.

Details of the changes are in the report.


Several routes will be added (and a few restored) to the Blue Night Network. This will fill in many gaps and address service in areas where there is potential demand. In a few cases, existing routes will be modified to simplify their layout and bring them more into consistency with daytime routes.

  • The King night car will be restored. Because this includes service on Broadview and on Roncesvalles where there are already night buses, the following changes will also occur:
    • The Jane night bus will operate straight south on Jane to Jane Station rather than southeast via Dundas and Roncesvalles to The Queensway.
    • The Don Mills night bus will operate straight south over the same route as the daytime Pape bus to Eastern Avenue rather than southwest via Danforth and Broadview to Queen.
    • The St. Clair night bus will take over service on Dundas between Jane and Dundas West Station.
  • The Bloor-Danforth night bus will be extended to Kennedy Station via Danforth Road and Eglinton.
    • The Danforth-McCowan night bus will be rerouted at its south end to serve Kingston Road from Brimley to Bingham Loop.
  • The Lawrence East night bus will operate to Starspray replacing the Eglinton East night bus.
    • The Eglinton East night bus will operate north to Malvern taking over the outer end of the existing Lawrence East and York Mills routes.
    • The York Mills night bus will operate east and north via Meadowvale to Sheppard.
  • All night service to York University will be provided by the new Keele night bus, and by extensions of the Jane and Steeles night buses.
  • The Steeles night bus will be extended east and south to a common terminus in Malvern with the Finch East and Eglinton East night buses.
  • Service on Lawrence will be extended west to the airport and east to Sunnybrook Hospital.
  • The Dufferin night bus will be extended north to Steeles.
  • New all-night services will be added on Sheppard West, Spadina to Union Station, Parliament, Kennedy, and on a night version of the Evans bus that will connect to Long Branch Loop.

Details of the changes are in the report.

Note that the extension of 353 Steeles to York University has already been scheduled to occur on June 21, 2015 in anticipation of the Pan Am Games at York University..

One important aspect of the very old night service network, probably remembered by only a few old hands, is that there were published schedules for major stops and timed connections where possible between routes. This was lost when the Blue Night network was created decades ago, and the TTC would do well to restore accurate information and more rigourous operation of the night routes. The quarterly performance measures are particularly bad for the night routes, a serious problem for people attempting to travel when 30-minute headways can play havoc with trip planning.



The Evolution of Service on 512 St. Clair (2) (Updated)

This article is a follow-up to an early April review of the gains and losses brought by the St. Clair right-of-way and subsequent “transit priority” measures. When it was published, the TTC had just changed schedules on this route to shorten trip times in response to repairs on several traffic signal locations where that “priority” function was not working. Did these repairs actually have an effect? How well did the line operate with less running time?

Updated May 23, 2015 at 12:40 pm:

Data for weekend operations has been added to the end of this article.


  • There was a definite increase in travel times in fall 2014 as compared with summer 2010 when the right-of-way operations west of St. Clair West Station began. The location and severity of the problem varied along the route with notable effects between Bathurst and Oakwood where there are many traffic signals.
  • The amount of running time added in the October 2014 schedules was slightly more than the actual increase in average running time over the route from 2010 to 2014.
  • Travel times were reduced after the repair of transit priority functions at several signals along the route, notably in sections with many traffic signals. This did not completely reverse the longer running times of 2014.
  • Short-turns as a proportion of all service declined with the new schedules in place.
  • The increased supervision produced more reliable headways.
  • The improvements of October 2014 have been slightly reduced with the new April 2015 schedules that clawed back much of the additional running time.

For reference, here is a table from the first article showing changes in schedules for the route since 2007.


Generally speaking, the April 2015 changes reduced one-way running time by 6 minutes during most periods with a few, minor adjustments to terminal “recovery time”. Those “recovery” values are as much a rounding factor to make the headway  come out to an even value as they are a calculated amount of time needed to deal with random delays.

Continue reading

The Evolution of Service on 29 Dufferin: Weekdays 2011 to 2015

29 Dufferin is one of the TTC’s target routes for improved performance, and it also happens to be a route that I have been following with TTC vehicle tracking data from selected months going back to November 2011. This article reviews the line’s operation on weekdays.

This article is somewhat technical, but has been written for a general audience to the degree the subject allows.

Scheduled Service History

An important factor in reviewing service on the street is the schedule itself: the headways (time between vehicles) and the running times provided for each trip. Headways may look good on paper, but if service arrives unreliably, or if some of it never reaches the destination thanks to short turns, then the advertised service is a polite fiction. Running times also have an effect, especially if they are shorter than the typical time required to drive from one end of a route to the other. When an operator cannot make the scheduled trip, the bus runs late and is quite likely to short turn simply to get it back on time. In theory, this “restores” normal service, but if vehicles are chronically late, the process never ends. The “treatment” never cures the “patient”.

The months included in this article are:

  • November 2011
  • March 2012
  • May 2013
  • September 2013 (Dufferin Bridge at CNE closes)
  • March 2014 (Diversion from College to Queen southbound for water main construction)
  • November 2014 (Introduction of articulated buses)
  • April 2015 (Major schedule revisions to reflect actual operating conditions)


This spreadsheet shows the scheduled headways and trip times for all of the periods covered by this article. In a few cases, there are two schedules shown for the same month because a change was implemented part way through.

The Dufferin Bus operates primarily between Dufferin Loop (at the Western Gate of the CNE ground) to Wilson Station. During peak periods there is a short turn at Tycos Drive where half of the service returns south. During certain periods (with seasonal variations), half of the service runs through the CNE grounds to the Princes’ Gate (eastern entrance).

In September 2013, the bridge on Dufferin at the rail corridor north of the CNE closed on very short notice for repairs. Service that was scheduled to operate to the Princes’ Gates turned back at Dufferin Loop. This resulted in half of the buses having more running time for their trips between Dufferin Loop and Wilson Station. Concurrently, a diversion for water main construction was operated southbound between College and Queen. These two offset each other, at least for the buses that were scheduled to run through to the Princes’ Gate. Extra running time (up to 10 minutes)  was not added to the schedules until the end of March 2014 in anticipation of the re-opening of the Dufferin Street bridge.

In November 2014, the route officially switched to articulated bus operation Weekdays and Saturdays, although these vehicles had been present for some time before.

In April 2014, there was a major restructuring of the schedules: considerably more running time was provided to reflect actual conditions, and the split operation at the south end of the route was discontinued on weekends.

Continue reading

A Work Train on the Prince Edward Viaduct

This is something of a “fan” shot, but the light has been getting better and better for the past few hours, and I could not resist sharing the view from my apartment.

This train is sitting on the westbound tracks on the Viaduct as part of a combined effort for the City of Toronto to clean up after bridge repairs, and for some of the TTC’s own maintenance work.

Normally, I don’t post full sized pictures, but this is an exception. Happy Victoria Day, almost, to everyone.

The Gardiner East Conundrum: Saving Time Is Not The Only Issue

Toronto’s Public Works and Infrastructure Committee (PWIC) will consider an updated report on the Gardiner East reconstruction options at a special meeting on May 13, 2015 where this will be the only item on the agenda. (Note that additional detailed reports are linked at the bottom the main report.)

There has been much discussion of the alternative designs for the expressway section between Jarvis Street and the Don River and, broadly speaking, there are two factions in the debate.

  • For one, the primary issues are to maintain speed and capacity of the road system, and to avoid gridlock.
  • For the other, the primary issue is the redevelopment of the waterfront, and the release of lands from the shadow of the expressway structure.

Both camps seek to encourage economic growth in Toronto, but by different means and with different underlying assumptions.

A further issue, largely absent from the Gardiner debate, is the role and comparative benefits of various transit projects ranging from GO/RER/SmartTrack at the regional level, down to subway options including the Scarborough Subway Extension and the Downtown Relief Line, and local transit including the Waterfront East LRT line and a proposed Broadview Extension south across Lake Shore to Commissioners Street including a Broadview streetcar.

Continue reading

TTC Board Meeting Wrap-up April 28, 2015

The TTC Board met on April 28, 2015, with what looked on the surface like a light agenda. Maybe a 3:00 pm finish after a short two-hour meeting, but in fact the whole thing dragged on to 6:00. Although parts were tedious, there was comic relief (a classic put-down of Denzil Minnan-Wong on funding of Seniors’ Fares), and some actual discussion of policy. Among the items on the agenda covered in this wrap-up are:

  • A request to Metrolinx re audit controls on Presto
  • A discussion of Mobility Hubs notably at Danforth Station
  • A presentation about TTC’s Procurement Process
  • Council decisions regarding the TTC’s 2015 Budget
  • A presentation about the quarterly Customer Satisfaction Survey
  • A presentation about TTC service to the Pan Am Games
  • The April 2015 CEO’s Report
  • Lease of additional office space for TTC capital program staff

Separate articles posted earlier on this site deal with:

Continue reading