http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/service_summary_2006_09_03.pdf

I have complaining to the TTC about loading standards on the 96 and 165, as they show the route in previous service summaries as a “HF” (high floor) route, but in practice use only Orion VIIs on weekends (and can be packed solid and are typically late, even on a Sunday morning).  The realistic service levels to meet demand on weekend day times are now shown for September.  Interestingly, both are still not yet designated accessible, but are not shown as “HF” or “Orion VII” but as “Lift” — presumably referring to the RTSs.

I also noticed that 41 Keele, which is now “Orion VII”, has been improved, but it is not designated accessible either in the service plan. Weird.

I also think it’s finally time to put routes like 98 Willowdale back to a real schedule, and not the token 60 minutes at just about all times.

Steve:  The 60 minute headways will disappear in a year or two when the Ridership Growth Strategy and its much more reasonable maximum headway standards kicks in.  Right now, it’s tied up in budget fights and internal foot-dragging.

I lived down by the 401 on the “B” portion of a poorly served bus route.  Service was poor on the main bbranch, and on the “B” portion we only got half the service.  I could “plan” what time to start my trip from home, but the return journey was at a random time.  I remember waiting for very long periods on Dundas.  Just buying a newspaper took me three hours or so.  This is effectively no transit service at all.

I was then, and am now, a transit enthusiast.  However, if I had stayed in London I would have had to buy a car.

With YRT, only VIVA operates at any sort of frequency most TTC routes have.  Most of the time, it’s most often 1/2 to 1 hour between buses.  Some hardly-traveled routes experience 2 hours between buses!  You shouldn’t show up any old time you want and expect a bus immediately (especially on 169 Huntingwood and other infrequents).  Planning ahead of time can be more effective than more buses.

Steve:  The problems with adapting this attitude to the TTC are:

• The concept of running on schedule is a foreign one to the TTC.  Getting to your stop a few minutes ahead of time is a good way to get a view of the tail lights of the bus as they disappear in the distance.
• The whole TTC system is based on the idea of connections between routes.  It is impossible to accurately predict when you will arrive at a transfer point.
• Most importantly, transit is not really an option for a significant number of riders when it runs every 30 minutes or worse for a seated load or less.

Steve:  I believe that RGS and the 20-minute maximum do not apply to the Blue Night routes.  We will still be faced with a mix of 10, 15, 20 and 30 minute headways.  One big problem is that when the network was smaller, the TTC published timepoints and transfer connections between the routes.  Everyone, including the operators, knew where these connections were.  Now there are no published connections, and it’s catch as catch can.  On a network the size of the 416, it’s an interesting question:  where should there be guaranteed connections between routes, and what happens when a schedule is altered?

It is regretable that many routes in Scarborough will not see any improvement.  The 169 Huntingwood and 42 Cummer service will still rush hour only.  Routes like 21 Brimley and 129 McCowan will still be overcrowded.

I now understand why many Torontonians want a metro or ICTS line close to where they live.  A overcrowded bus will mean standing at a bus stop.  The sun, rain, snow and anything in between will quickly make the experience a terrible one.  Who wants to wait 20 minutes for a bus anyways?  I have seen cyclists beating the TTC bus service almost 90% of the time because of the frequent stops and long wait times.  At least with a rail based service, it is always 5 minutes service with a solid roof over one’s head.  The exclusive right of way also helps.  I do not know of any cyclists who can beat a TTC metro or ICTS service.

Ridership growth will not happen until these fundamental problems are addressed.  The lack of funding is the biggest problem.  The TTC should operate another type of bus service.  In Asia, many buses make 10 local community stops and than it is in express mode until it reaches the destination.  This means no pickup or drop offs.  Imagine how fast the 39 Finch bus would be if it makes stops between Neilson to Brimley and than operates non stop to Finch.  The trip will probably take less than 20 minutes.  This will probably be a better bet than putting more buses on long routes or building metros everywhere.

It’s my impression that the “capital” side of the funding has improved significantly in the past two or three years.  The “operating” side still seems to be problematic.

Steve:  Even the capital side is badly skewed by the planned Spadina Subway extension.  Two billion dollars to carry a handful of riders when we don’t have enough money to buy equipment for the existing system and expand its scope of service operations.

What happens next year when the service improvements being implemented in September would require subsidizing for the whole year?  Since the improvements would already have been implemented (in 2006) then it would be the status quo for 2007 rather than what was in place in January 2006.  The status quo is often the starting point for budget deliberations.

Steve:  Shhhh.  Don’t tell anyone.  The TTC creates a budget based on current operations plus full-year effect of any in-year changes and the part year cost of any proposals.  Then they make assumptions about ridership and estimated revenue.  This yields a deficit number.

When the bean counters come after them, the cuts will come from proposed additions for the new year plus any “efficiencies” than can be scraped out of the budget overall.