After many, many years, the service improvements promised by the Ridership Growth Strategy are here. Starting November 23, we will see the rollout of more service on many, many routes to implement the following new service standards:
- Peak bus loading standards are reduced by about 10% (a route will be considered to be “full” with a lower average load). This triggers service improvements on many routes, but loading generally has been rising and there is already a backlog of changes waiting to begin. This affects 62 routes with a total of 89 more am and 65 pm peak buses.
- Off peak bus standards, as well as streetcar and rapid transit standards for all periods, are unchanged at, effectively, a seated load. Note that this is an average over an hour and local variations will occur.
- Routes with services less frequent than 30 minutes will be improved to the new 30-minute maximum headway. This affects 26 routes.
- All routes will operate seven days a week during all periods until at least 1:00 am. This affects about 86 routes.
Also, Mount Dennis Garage will open roughly a year after it was actually finished.
One caveat, of course, is the already known problems with hybrid bus availability. The degree to which the TTC can get and keep its fleet of these vehicles on the road will affect the full rollout of the new peak period services.
Meanwhile, I cannot help noticing the breadth of the changes across the system with 20% better service found fairly commonly on some routes and periods just to get average loading within the standards. This shows a combination of deferred improvements and of the unusual rate of riding growth on some routes.
Updates October 25:
A summary of the changes, boiled down from the 80-odd page original, is now available.
A table of the revised loading standards is now available.
Updates November 6:
A list of division assignments is now available.
Steve Munro 
I think it would be wise to keep the old GM buses until we can come up with a plan for new buses, and what I mean is a smart plan, not poltical mumbo jumbo. Alternate a GM with a low floor/lift bus on the busy routes and put the low floors on the 10+ minute frequency routes. Restrict the GMs to monday to friday, to maximise their lifespan, and haul the riders. If we have to rebuild the GMs then so be it.
LikeLike
With regard to the GMs, I have noticed that their application has become limited by the fact that they just can’t perform like the Orions when it comes to speed, and so I have seen too many of them on express routes where they simply can’t overtake another bus due to inclines, inclement weather or other factors that a newer vehicle could overcome.
LikeLike
Deferred maintenance is finally catching up with the GMs. They’re usually fast after some work has been done on them, but with their planned exit within the next two years, how much heavy work is really being done on them other than enough to keep them running? Still, a slow GM will always overtake a conked-out Orion hybrid sitting at the side of the road.
The GMs need a round of mechanical overhauls to improve their performance, but at this stage in their lives, it’s probably not likely.
LikeLike
Much appreciated Steve. Of course, I skipped directly to my home routes, and maybe this will help with the overcrowding rampant on my route on weekends. Additionally, I have the option of a more roundabout route that never existed before on weekends.
Didn’t the TTC promise 20 minute service floors with the RGS originally? Still, I can see the amount of work required to get things to this level, plus general deferred fixes to overloadings, and this is a great, albeit, delayed, move.
PS:
Actually, I think I was a little hasty in thinking the new service on Wilson will help much. As you may know, I rely on the 96/165, which is a horror show Saturdays and Sundays (not so much weekdays, except around 9PM). This additional Wilson-Thistledown route (I wonder if there will be yet another letter for this branch) is nice, but not enough. I guess I might find myself going the long way around via DeHavilland (now that it is a somewhat viable option) if I continue to experience the overcrowding and bunching on Wilson.
Steve: The 20 minute maximum headway is planned for late 2009, subject to budget constraints.
The letters for Wilson now are:
The following is discontinued:
LikeLike
Good news.
I am somewhat puzzled about the headways like 24′ or 17’30” on some routes. Would it be more convenient to round them up to 30′ or 20′, respectively? This way if you take a route regularly, you know when to expect the bus any hour without even looking into the schedule.
Steve: The question of clockface headways has always been a difficult one for the TTC. In some cases, pushing the headway out also affects service on a shorter branch of the route where the combined service is more frequent, and may cause loadings to violate the standards. When you look at the detailed schedules, many of them have a layover built in to round up the headway as you suggest. I didn’t include running time info to keep this chart down to something manageable.
LikeLike
There are 2 problems with these changes. On an overcrowded route like the 39 Finch East, more vehicles won’t help much, as they’ll just eng up getting bunched up anyways and people will still crowd onto the first bus they see. The only way to fix that would to be able to fit more people onto a vehicle (i.e. articulated).
2nd is the fact that the rules don’t allow any flexibility. Now, a route like the 120 Calvington that solely serves an industrial area which could only support a 60′ headway, peak only, would have to have 30′ service all days, all times. That seems like a complete waste of resources to provide that service. The TTC should use a policy like YRT where “base” routes to serve everyone have to operate at all times, but routes like the 120, which are very local and peak oriented can be exempted. Then, the places that will actually benefit from the new service (ex. arterials that previously had no Sunday service, i.e. 51 Leslie) will still get it, but routes where buses will run empty through deserted streets won’t waste the resources.
LikeLike
I also have to say that these changes are really earth shattering for me. I was looking for a place to live a while back and as someone who works nights so many places were “off limits” due to poor bus schedules. This really opens up the entire city. I hope they can stick to this.
Steve: That was the whole idea of restoring full service — make the surface system available to everyone, everywhere.
The one outstanding change that may come in fall 2009 (subject to budget concerns) is to reduce the maximum headway from 30 to 20 minutes except for the night services.
I don’t suppose you’ll be able to be our hero again and get us a copy of the service summary for these events when it becomes public.
Steve: The report on detailed scheduling changes always comes out several weeks before the service summary. When it’s available, I will post it if it is not up on the TTC site.
LikeLike
Thanks Steve,
I, among many others I know, always appreciate your efforts in getting better, more intelligible info out in the public domain sooner.
***
I have to say, from the routes I am familiar with in my area, I really question some of the changes … more so the changes that didn’t happen … but even some of those that did.
Which is to say, particularly for peak services, there are some routes I know that seem constantly over crowded to the point buses do not always stop at required stops as they are over full, yet, no improvement.
While other services got improvements, that I can’t say weren’t desirably, maybe even necessary, but by no means as needed.
So, I’m curious, Steve, were these changes based on objective ridership data?
Do you know if the data is accurate and up to date?
And when they do the count is it an average? Or is is the worst point on the route?
Steve: The TTC has only so many passenger counters, and the values cannot possibly be all up-to-date. However, any route with chronic overcrowing for the past year should have been surveyed by now.
Yes, the values are averages. If the service is badly bunched, or if a lot of it is going somewhere (a short turn, for example) that is of little use to riders, this is included. Therefore, the averages understate the actual condition on vehicles. Most riders are on the crowded buses and streetcars, and the “average” riding experience is much different from the “average” load. That’s why the service standard load is well below the theoretical peak capacity.
LikeLike
HW: The 120 Calvington is a residential route. The only industry it serves is DeHavilland, otherwise winding through residential areas (it was combined with the 3 Ancaster Park, which serves a low density residential area as well as the aircraft plant), the Calvington section is strictly residential and connects to Jane and Sheppard.
Steve, the service summary back in February 2008 (before a number of big service improvements) was embargoed for a big media splash. Remember that? And that was when they actually still had service summaries on the TTC website. Still, this is good news, 30 minute service all day, every day, really is the minimum that people can know they can rely on transit no matter what time it is. Once you get down to less than 15 minutes, people will forgo even checking the schedules. 40, 45, or 60 minute service is almost useless, except rural or intercity services.
LikeLike
Service Reduction! New route branch reduces my headways! 38 Highland Creek a route I used to take very often! I know a few people who will not like the 15 mins headways in the AM peak. I think I understand the fiscal aspect, but that is going to drive people to park at the GO station or take the 401, or even Kingston road. Not on the bus mind you. Most of the people who live or work east of U of T are metropass users, a service reduction like that is not something we can swallow.
Steve: The next time a Scarborough Councillor complains about the coddled downtowners who hate their service quality, I will remind them of the coddled riders of the 38 whose new service is still quite generous relative to demand. It’s rather amusing to hear a complaint about one of the very few service cuts involved in this whole exercise.
69 Warden South via Birchmount. All day service, it’s used by many people who live in the high rises south of St. Clair. This is used a lot by people climbing that large incline hill south of St. Clair, which is like a skating rink most of the time in the winter. Currently people ride the Warden south branch to get to the buildings south of Birchmount/St.Clair where they live, going. South on Warden-East on Kingston-North on Birchmount. Yeah added time that shouldn’t be there.
Lots of routes that 4-6 years ago were on my wishlist. 98 Willowdale-Senlac. Service every sixty minutes, if it was more then a 20 minute wait, you went up to Finch and took the 125 Drewry bus, and if both didn’t run then it was the 60 Steeles West, or the 97 Yonge bus. No late evening serivce during the week. No evening service on saturday or sunday, and hourly service on Sunday, from 10am-7pm. Funny I still remember that. Oh and 15 min service during rush hour. And if coming from the Spadina line I had a way there too.
I would have prefered 20 mins headways, but this actually makes the system full, and I think within three years some of these routes will get more service imrovements because of the loading standards. The TTC doesn’t feel broken anymore, from a map puzzle point of view.
LikeLike
Okay, here comes the right-winger to poke holes in this “improvement”.
While I am in favour of most of these improvements, such as service increases on most trunk routes, the restoration of all day service on some routes which were cut in 1997, some of these route “improvements” strike me as absolutely ridiculous. In their zeal to make all routes run all day they may have shown to the GTA how really bad their service planning is.
Take for example the following routes:
– 115 Silver Hills: This route only runs in rush hours and spends most of the time on York Mills Rd (served by the 95). On the area which it actually serves is a low density housing area where homes are constantly being demolished to make way for million-dollar mansions in which the occupants are less likely to take the TTC. Worse yet, it does not make a connection to Leslie Station as it should be doing. If this is designed to increase service along York Mills, the service improvement should have been done on the 95 York Mills instead.
– 120 Calvington: Even worse than the 115. Only 3 runs during each peak period. Can they actually justify all-day service on a route which has lesser people than the 115? Why not bring back the former 163 Rustic Road route for more hillarity?
– 162 Lawrence-Donway: See above. I have never seen more than 4 people on one of these buses in the route it actually serves. An argument could be made that this could act as a connector to Lawrence East of Leslie, but this fails if the rider is going east of Don Mills. This route should have been cut long ago.
– 86D/116A/96C&H: These branches serve only sparsely populated areas, and thus, the only justification for the expansion of these branches is to act as a short turn or a helper bus for larger portions of their parent routes. But why not increase service on the entire main route instead of a portion of it? Such a change will decrease loads even further.
– 96A/B and 73C: Is there any real justification for serving business areas during non-work hours? In the case of the 73C, it should have been cut off at Martin Grove on weekends.
What should have been done is a targeted analysis on what routes would benefit from these changes and act accordingly, not a blanket improvement on all routes without consideration of the geography these routes run in. Worse yet, some routes that would have benefitted from such improvements were left ignored: i.e. 70A to Craigton (still runs until 10pm only), 79B via St Clair (still weekday daytime service only), and 108A Downsview (still weekday daytime service only). The 102 Markham Road still does not connect to Steeles despite the latter having its route extended to Staines Rd at all times. The 97B to Queens Quay still operates on rush hours only (though some would still prefer bus service on Yonge). Finally, the routes that serve York Region still end after around 10pm every day, no improvement to the people who would have embraced these changes.
In the end, there are going to be critics of the TTC who will be armed with more ammunition and charges that spending at the TTC is “out of control”. Nothing riles taxpayers more than seeing empty buses plying unused streets in odd parts of the day.
Steve: Nothing riles transit advocates more than critics who pick holes on the small change while ignoring the bigger picture, and who get their facts wrong in the process.
First, York Region services are operated under contract. If York wants more bus service either in frequency or in hours of service, all they have to do is ask and pay for it, or run it themselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with the TTC (or with Metrolinx for that matter seeing that they do not deign to look at “local” operations).
Second, your list of missed services:
For those who don’t know the territory, the two branches of O’Connor (70A and 70B) both go to Eglinton, but one loops north (70A) and one south (70B). What is missing is only service around the north loop. That’s an obvious fixup and doesn’t have any impact on the number of vehicles needed.
The 79B Scarlett Road via St. Clair off-peak service may have been missed, but it’s not as if people there don’t have some transit nearby. There was quite a fight over establishing this branch in the first place, but worth revising the debate. Again, no impact on vehicles required.
Service on 108A Downsveiw via Grandravine deserves a look.
Markham Road 102 now goes almost to Steeles during most periods. Removing the McNicoll Loop who require rethinking service in the area served by that loop. I suspect what happened here was that the service further north was treated as part of the York Region contract service and was simply missed in the analysis.
All of this is small change, and can easily be fixed by a followup.
As for complaints about full service in some areas, the whole point about transit is that it goes everywhere. If you want to cut service to places with million-dollar mansions, I can think of a lot of places throughout the GTA where we can save a lot of money today.
You really need to put your arguments in the context of restoring transit service ravaged by budget cuts of the past decade. Fine tuning can follow, and we may even trim a route here or there, but the idea that this exercise shows how wasteful the 416 is on transit spending is laughable.
You want waste? Just look at the two subway lines York Region wants to build. Maybe someday they might even run late evening bus service to connect with them.
LikeLike
Steve, you’re missing my point: the services on the routes that I identified never had regular service. And yet now they are being given 18 hours a day service when there may be no justification for any. Take the Humberline/Albion area for example: the only reason why the 73 bus runs there during the weekends is that it is most useful east of Martin Grove, not west. But I cannot see justification for the Wilson branches to be full service when no one will take them. They have never received full service so I wonder what benefit they will be and who will use them?
And besides the idea on calling this wasteful transit is not mine, but it will be brought up by the critics. The TTC will have to get ready to justify itself in these events. You want to restore levels to those provided by the TTC before the budget cuts? Fine, do that, I have no problems with it and are all for it. But in some cases, especially on low-impact or industrial routes, the changes that are being made is nothing short of overkill. Sure, transit should go “everywhere” but will the people use it? The buses that are being used on these routes (I can think of more “wasteful” routes than the ones that I mentioned) can be used to bolster service on other parts of the system. I’d rather see that then empty buses running on some street in the middle of Timbuktu, thank you very much.
RE: York Region’s subways- We all know my position on this, especially on the Sorbara line. The Yonge Line to Richmond Hill centre is a different story however, and while there could be demand for it, expanding it up there can open up a whole new can of worms with regards to capacity on points south of Sheppard. And oh yes, they have late evening service on most of their routes already.
We both want the same thing with regards to transit improvements. I just want them to do it in a way which benefits those who actually need it.
LikeLike
Couple of other points:
70A/B: The reason why they cut back service to the south side of Eglinton only is because the runtime on the 70A branch one-way is around 20 minutes while the 70B is 15 one way. Because of a 30 minute interval, you’re looking at possibly one additional bus. And to make the headways consistent with both branches on this route, you’ll need more service on the branch to Warden station. So yes, they need to take this into consideration.
108A: Why not restore the old 119 Grandravine route? This was cut around the time of the big budget cuts in the Harris years.
102: I’m pretty sure that additional buses will be needed to connect the route to Steeles Avenue.
Finally the 167D via Consumers Road: where is the demand there (another business area)? Why not just have the bus run via Sheppard? And why are we still missing connecting service between the northern and southern Pharmacy routes?
LikeLike
One more:
79: if they want to add service to the 79B branch and if they want to maintain a 30 minute headway, this has to be done on each branch, and thus more buses are needed.
On all of the routes I mentioned, I have no objections with the restoration of services, but one can see where a more “targeted” approach to service restoration can achieve better results than to have some strange route going nowhere 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.
LikeLike
Stephen,
The issue here is not immediate ridership growth, but city coverage so that said ridership growth is even possible. Back in the eighties, the TTC used to use a service standard of saying that you are “served” if you are within a 300 metre walk of a bus stop. Well, that bus stop had better be operating at all hours of day, or there are going to be portions of this city which come out of service during certain periods.
That said, I do notice that there has been some interesting “finessing” of service improvements to save buses where possible. For instance, new branches of 169 Huntingwood (to provide service on Van Horne) and the 167D branch of Pharmacy North (to provide service on Consumers).
This is perhaps the biggest service increase the TTC has seen since the introduction of Blue Night service back in 1986, so let’s give some of these services time (say, six months) before we can see if there are areas where we can redistribute resources elsewhere. Fair enough?
One other service I noticed was 171 Mount Dennis, which looks and feels exactly like that 99 Arrow Road service which provides a connection between the network and the garage for bus drivers. How long before we get a Comstock Road route? And where exactly is 171 Mount Dennis running?
Steve: The Mount Dennis bus route runs:
Clockwise through Mount Dennis Division, south on Industry, north on Todd Baylis, east on Trethewey, south on Black Creek, west on Eglinton, north on Weston Road to Jane. Return trip via north on Jane, east and south on Trethewey, south on Todd Baylis, north on Industry to the north entrance of the Division.
That’s the official route from the service change memo.
LikeLike
I’d also like to respond to Stephen Cheung.
On the 115. You suggested that we just “Add more buses to York Mills” instead? I agree, let’s re-label the 115 as the 95C. The name of the route means little, buses are often most crowded then leaving or getting to a subway station. I don’t have a problem with adding more of them there.
Next on the 120. Take a look at Jane street. The 120 runs there. Now there will be an all-day opportunity for those living on Jane to make it to the YUS line without a transfer.
On the 86D/116A/96C&H. I fail to see how running a bus twice as far will help. What you’re proposing is that rather then run buses to an area that does not need it, we run them to another area that does not need it. Why does the “end” of these routes “need” the buses more than any of these branches? I actually know someone who lives along the 86D and I’ve tried to convert him to transit, but no matter how I work the numbers it would take him about two hours to get to work near Finch station.
Not everyone who lives in those “big houses” is rich, those “working fathers” have wives, and they have children, and not everyone who can afford a nice house can afford 4 nice cars to go with it.
I’m actually going to agree with you that the TTC needs to take a close and serious look at where improvements need to go. I agree that some routes do not need 20 minute service until 1am (Alness comes to mind). The problem is that once you start hacking away at this or that route, arguments come to do it to other routes and you end up where we were. I think that 20 minute headways on all routes until 10pm is fair, but not perfect, even Alness, and that 30 minute headways from 10am to 1am on all routes is also fair and reasonable.
If I had my way I’d provide 15 minute service (min) on all regular routes during the mid-day, 20 in the early evening, and 30 in the late evening, but I’d still provide limited “Rush hour only” services, and also look at what routes are really needed to have this kind of service. (EG Alness and Dufferin North – do both need to run after 10pm?)
In closing I’d also like to note that I am a “Right-Winger”. I have a membership card in the federal Conservative party. That does not mean that I cannot see what is good for Transit.
LikeLike
First of all, thanks for the work in assembling this information, Steve.
In many cases there are some impressive improvements here, but there are others that I have to wonder whether it is a worthwhile investment of a bus and operator. Not so much the extended service on smaller, lighter routes; the extended Consumers Road service, for example, is an improvement for workers that need to work late, and travel after the last 24A has left. Rather, it’s the long, busy routes that already operate at very short headways.
The best example on this list appears to be the Dufferin bus, where there will be two more operators on the route in the AM peak, and the effect will be to shorten the (average) headway by all of 8 seconds, and reduce the (average, on paper) passenger loading by 3 riders. Now, realistically, how much of an effect are these two additional buses really going to have? Even if the buses ran according to the average headways and loadings, the impact is pretty low. Add in the variability, bunching and unreliability that we usually see on these routes, and any impact is going to be pretty much lost in the usual bunching.
I am generally all for increases to make service more convenient and to make it easier to rely on the surface transit network, but it seems that there are other ways that these two buses and operators could be used to greater effect:
* On shorter routes, or lower-frequency routes, just one additional vehicle on the route can result in a much greater improvement on headways. We see this in a lot of the other improvements listed. One more bus on Coxwell in the PM peak drops the headway from 8 minutes to 6 minutes… one more bus on Mortimer in the AM peak reduces the headway from 15 minutes to 11 minutes.
* Add the two buses to the Dufferin route, but have them as standby buses (or operators) that are available to fill a gap in either direction, or to have step-back crewing (like the TTC is trying on Queen). Then, instead of them being just two more buses to get bunched up, they are being used strategically to try and improve service as needed.
LikeLike
Perhaps with the old GM’s they need to do the same thing as they do with old subway trains, rush hour service only. This would mean that if you have a route like 104 Faywood, it would get 2 buses that are newer and wheelchair accessible, and one bus (GM) that isn’t. If you need the wheelchair bus, and the next scheduled bus isn’t you just have to wait for the next one.
I like the new schedule for this particular bus, right now I need to walk to Finch to get a bus tonight to get to work, after the changes I will no longer need to do this, as there will be a late evening Sunday bus. Right now none of the 3 optional routes have late evening service.
LikeLike
Given the tightening supply of drivers in the current market I think the issue of TTC operating contracts for YRT should be revisited again. If York thinks it needs a subway it should be big enough to run buses on all of its routes, or at least run reciprocating buses on some TTC routes where best route management says that some routes are most efficient from TTC garages and some from YRT.
I’m not saying we break the contract and pay penalties as we did with Etobicoke garbage but the Commission should take a fresh look at the YRT-TTC relationship and ensure it still works for the TTC, rather than retaining it simply because of organisational inertia. Of course, the report detailing the cost-benefit will take three years to be produced…
LikeLike
I’d like to comment on Industrial areas, some companies have 24 hour operation, so if you work the night shift you can’t take transit, if the last bus that runs near your work place runs at 10PM. This also applies to afternoon shift workers who don’t finish until midnight Not everybody works 9-5. I do think however a 30 minute headway is reasonable, for late evening service on routes that don’t have large amounts of late evening traffic.
LikeLike
James Bow:
I agree with your assessment about city coverage as to influence ridership development, but the issue here is placing ridership in an area which ultimately would not have any during certain periods like industrial and office areas. Sure you can say that we should give these services six months, but you’re forgetting that this is merely playing into the hands of those who want to cut service to the bone. They will say that why do “wasteful service increases” when it will be cut 6 months later? “Why not do it at all”, they will say?
Nick J Boragina:
Re: 120- The portion of Jane Street served by this route is small compared to the rest of the route itself. At Sheppard, riders can use the 84 Sheppard route to Downsview Station. If this route was extended northward to say, Finch, then maybe you have an argument, but right now, I just can’t see the justification.
86D/116A/96C&H- No, I am not proposing that the services be put from an area that does not need it to an area that does not need it. The main services for these routes serves far more areas on both ends than just the branch. The 86 serves several highrise apartments at Meadowvale. The 116 makes connections at Sheppard, McLevin and soon Finch (when they finish Morningside north of Old Finch). The 96 serves Humber College, the Hospital, and several highrise and townhouse developments. I think those people would benefit far more than the few who use those unused branches.
105- This route is a badly needed connector into York region as it serves residents north of Steeles. As for Alness, I’m betting that they are combining this as a branch of the 105 as it basically serves the same route south of Steeles.
And as you know, I volunteered for the Conservatives for the last election. That also does not mean that I cannot see what’s better for transit.
LikeLike
hmmmm…the chart says the 132 Milner has an Old Headway of 23min (M-F Early Evening). That doesn’t seem right. As far as I know it’s always been 16min in the afternoon/early evening. On a side note, it’s good to see the 132 Milner finally get that Saturday service.
Steve: I will check this when I get a chance, and will update this comment.
LikeLike
To borrow a page from Steve’s book, aren’t the RGS improvements going for an overall “network” of service that covers the city? Sure, we could all nitpick the list to find routes where there may end up being one lonely person on a bus on some route which is on the list of routes already mentioned as potentially “wasteful”. It seems to me that the goal is to create a network where you can travel by TTC to the far corners of the city at most hours of the day. If you don’t risk the investment you don’t get any return. Imagine if the old explorers followed the “why do it all” approach based on a few futile trips that didn’t yield the tons of gold and riches that they were looking for? “Well, those three expeditions yielded nothing so let’s forget about exploring anymore, they were just wasteful missions so we’re just going to stop now”.
Industrial areas used to always have odd service hours to match the shifts. The old Pape 72A to Commissioners ran into the late evening but not in the midday as an example.
Steve: And finally, the folks living in and travelling to the Distillery District get full service on what was once thought of as an “industrial” route.
LikeLike
Why do people keep mentioning route 117. If you look at the file posted by Steve it is not on the list and will not have any service increase this time.
LikeLike
On industrial areas:
I am a security guard. I also choose to work night shifts as more are open, and its quiet. This means I often get to find ways to make it from wherever I happen to be living to some abandoned industrial area at midnight, or to be there for 6am. Getting from Shaw and Dupont to Warden and the 401 in order to be on duty at 6am was always ‘fun’.
One reason why I mention the 117 and not the 73C is that walking to the area served by the 73C is difficult in some cases, whereas the 117 mirrors the 105 for a large part of it’s route. I use the 117 as an example because the theory behind these increases is to make ____ on “all” routes. The 117 is a route, and weather or not it gets an improvement this time, the ideology says it should.
Just looking at the TTC map (I have it taped to my wall beside my computer 😛 along with maps from every other GTA system! Yes, I’m an addict) and I cannot find one single other route like the 117. The 122 mirrors a busy route that could use extra service, The 108 serves an area that does not easily transfer to it’s final destination (Downsview) The 124 makes another important connection. The 23 and 168 are both small but also busy, etc etc etc.
I suppose having un-needed service on a single route (117) is fine if that gets us a better network, but financial restraint is always an issue and if we get to carried away with out of peak services, we would need to cut our peak services.
LikeLike
Robert: Tell that to the taxpayers of Toronto. I’m pretty sure all of them will be mollified by your response. It’s different when you are doing your explorations on your own dime compared to someone else’s, and that someone else (not me) tells you it’s a waste of money and can also tell you WHY it is.
LikeLike
If the 117 basically mirrors the 105, without looking at the maps, but knowing the general area, perhaps it SHOULD become another branch of the 105, rather then a separate route, then for late evening service, you run the longest branch, or a separate branch that covers some additional area.
As for the Taxpayers, governments seem to be unable to learn from history, and are doomed to repeat it. It costs more to cut and restore a service, then it does to maintain it. In the case of buses, you cut service and retire old buses and some of the older drivers, When you restore service you need to add new buses and hire and train new drivers. However another thing that you lose and may not gain back, are the passengers, and maybe not only from that route, but other routes as well, in that a large round of public service cuts can cause people to lose faith in the system.
What costs more, providing decent late evening transit, or higher levels of welfare because people can’t afford to buy a car to go to work, because their $8.50/hour night cleaner job is in an area not served by transit after 10PM?
LikeLike
Stephen: The King of Spain represented the taxpayers and a few unsuccessful trips utlimately led to a huge inflow of wealth into the country which as you know from Economics generated more wealth due to the multiplier effect. Granted, the king didn’t have the interest of the taxpayers in mind, but the decision was made on their behalf and they benefitted. Our government is somewhat less imperial, but nonetheless has been elected to make decisions in the collective best interest.
Most corporations that “explore” and launch new products/businesses don’t do it on their own dime either, but raise capital in the market, with those people who provide that capital understanding that there is a risk that it may not be a success. The corporation makes the decisions on their behalf, with the understanding that there may be a handsome return or that the venture may not turn out, but if there is no investment there is definitely no return.
No one should expect that the week after service improvements go into effect there will suddenly be full buses and that anything else would be a “waste”. It takes time for people to realize that they now have more options to travel and ridership will build once people adjust their travel patterns to take advantage of new alternatives. Certainly after a period of time some review and adjustment would be appropriate.
Steve: To which I would add the observation that “waste” is a loaded political word typically used by people who don’t want to spend money on something, but don’t want to justify their position. When it’s something they want to support despite dubious forecasts, it’s an “investment”.
I part company with Stephen only on his use of the “w” word in respect of a comparatively small portion of the whole service improvement package. By implication, the package is a mess when the real situation is that it needs some fine tuning. People will not be rioting in the streets here in Toronto. If the good folks in the 905 have nothing better to do than complain about a few buses in Toronto with few riders, I suggest they look closer to home.
LikeLike
re: 132 Milner
I took a look at the TTC website. It appears I was incorrect in my earlier post. Early Evening (around 7:40pm) does indeed have a headway of 23 min on this route. I was probably thinking of PM Peak when I said 16 min.
LikeLike
“I part company with Stephen only on his use of the “w” word in respect of a comparatively small portion of the whole service improvement package. By implication, the package is a mess when the real situation is that it needs some fine tuning. People will not be rioting in the streets here in Toronto. If the good folks in the 905 have nothing better to do than complain about a few buses in Toronto with few riders, I suggest they look closer to home.”
That’s exactly my point. I’ve always maintained the concept of perception, what they see isn’t always the entire picture. I’m not trying to present any roadblocks here to this monumental service improvement, but I am trying to point out that there are always going to be people who will pick at these kind of things and make a big inferno about it. The route changes I pointed out strike me as “ridiculous” because I know that not only will they likely remain unused, but this will likely end up being fodder for some critics to use. And when these critics shout, they shout loud, the more they shout, the worse it gets. When trying to ensure more stable funding for operational reasons, you can bet that the TTC will run into brick walls in the form of critics lambasting their “wasteful service improvements”. It’s all about playing your cards smart and making sure that the big bad critic has his bottle to suck on.
Like I said, I am in favour for most of these improvements. I just wish the TTC didn’t provide itself with a wide opening for a shot to the gut.
LikeLike
“When it’s something they want to support despite dubious forecasts, it’s an “investment”.”
I will humbly point out that this argument is used on both sides of the political debate. It is not limited to just the right or just the left.
LikeLike
The irony in Stephen Cheung’s latest, supposedly right-wing argument is that this plan has the TTC acting much like the private sector. Phrased in business buzzwords, this is a “customer-focused investment to build market share and strengthen the TTC brand”.
There’s even a close private-sector parallel: a year ago, TD Canada Trust upped the minimum hours for its branches. Urban branches are open until 8 pm Thursday and Friday and 8-4 on Saturday. This policy is applied even where, locally, it doesn’t make sense: the corner of King and Bay is dead at 7:30 pm on a Thursday or at 10 am on a Saturday, but the TD main branch is open. And, to cherry-pick another example, there are three branches within three blocks of Yonge & Eglinton keeping the longer hours, even though the small branches could easily close earlier and direct folks to the big branch, with little loss of convenience. TD seems to feel that open branches are valuable to the company overall, even if a few tellers sitting idle represent an added expense.
The TTC is doing much the same: riders benefit when routes don’t disappear from the network at random time periods. Even six months from now, an empty bus doesn’t mean the strategy is failing. You’d have to look at overall levels of off-peak ridership, as well as the level of taxpayer subsidy for operating expenses (which remains absurdly low). Private-sector companies aren’t limited to adopting only feeble strategies that can withstand all armchair criticism; why should the public sector be any different?
LikeLike
One of the issues here isn’t always the empty bus, many buses that may only have one or two passengers at times, connect to routes that are quite busy, the much maligned, 117 connects Downsview Station to 36 Finch West and 60 Steeles West, although 105 Dufferin North does the same thing, these are connector routes. If you live near Eglinton West Station and want to go to Jane and Steeles for example, you can either go East on Eglinton to Yonge and go North to Finch and then take the Steeles West or go North to Downsview and grab the 105 or 117 to Steeles, and then the 60 bus to Jane Street. However the current system of having different routes operate with different hours makes route planning much more difficult, some people give up trying to figure it out and take the car. Knowing that all routes operate when the subway is open, makes route planning much easier, so some people will use the system, who might otherwise not do so, even if they don’t take that one of those empty or near empty buses.
LikeLike
Stephen Cheung essentially says that even if the “commen sense” idiots (my word) have not fully analysed the situation, the TTC should be guiding its policy so as not to upset them. This is nonsensical and reflects the lack of true analysis done by the right. Does Barack Obama consort with unAmerican traitors. Does the TTC waste money on service. There are many other questions posed by the right. I have my opinion on most of them. It is different.
LikeLike
Matt: For starters, I don’t bank at TD. And because I am not a customer at TD, I could give a rat’s ass as to how they operate their extended hours environment. If I was a customer however, I’d be getting pretty upset in knowing that this is why my bank fees are so high.
Likewise, as a taxpayer in the City of Toronto (you guys seem to forget that I live in Etobicoke, and not in the 905 area, yet…..), I expect my tax dollars to be spent wisely. Now while I am not blowing fire and brimstone over these route issues, I know people who would. People seem to forget that there are councillors who think the TTC is not essential to them and would rather see service cut to the bone. Councillor Ford has already advocated in the past that service should be cut to trunk routes only, and none of these sidestreet routes crap. I’m sure he will be the first out of the gate once these improvements are rolled out.
So be careful, if this issue comes up in funding arguments and accusations fly about the TTC “wasting” taxpayers money, don’t shout that I didn’t warn you earlier.
LikeLike
I wonder if [text deleted] arguments about “looking out” for the “common sense folk” are extended to the lower class people when tax breaks are proposed resulting in cuts to our social services.
That being said, I do have the benefit of real life experience to know that he does have an eensy-weeny bit of a point. As a former Markhamite, I recall a conversation I had with a Markham Transit driver in which I was told that late evening service on most of their routes was cancelled due to low ridership. Apparently certain taxpayers were incensed at the sight of empty buses on its routes during periods after 10. So aside from the Highway 7 route, late evening service was cancelled and replaced with a taxicab service (which sucked rocks) and the Highway 7 service was cut back to every hour instead of 30 minutes. I am pretty sure that act set back progress of public transit in York Region by about 10 years. Had it not been for those people, we would have service that would rival the TTC. Which is why I maintain the YRT needs to be taken over by the TTC so York Region can see what REAL public transit is all about.
But sentiments, like Samsonite, are hard to break. There are still some anti-transit sentiments in Markham, as witnessed by myself in a recent gathering as several people bemoaned the “empty buses” plying around their nice, upperclass homes, as a waste of taxpayer money. Sort of reminds me of that lady in Durham who didn’t want a bus running in front of her yard. More highways they say…..
The right wing common sense folk need not be coddled, they should be whacked up and down with a rolled up newspaper so they cannot pour cold water in Toronto’s transit plans. Which is why I consider myself to be a “905 expatriate”.
LikeLike
“One of the issues here isn’t always the empty bus, many buses that may only have one or two passengers at times, connect to routes that are quite busy, the much maligned, 117 connects Downsview Station to 36 Finch West and 60 Steeles West, although 105 Dufferin North does the same thing, these are connector routes.”
The 117 isn’t really a connector route – its main function is to bring workers to/from the industrial area in the Alness/Flint area (and not to connect Downsview Station with Steeles or Finch buses). That is where those buses fill up heading southbound during p.m. rush hour and empty out on northbound trips in a.m. rush. The 105 is more of a connector route connecting housing developments north of Steeles to the subway.
The other major destination on both routes is the high school in the Wilson Heights/Sheppard area, but it mainly effects the buses going southbound at 8:30-9:00 a.m. and northbound around 3:20-4:00 p.m.
LikeLike
Matthew Kemp I have comment about your views on the 38 reduction. I happen to live on the 38 route, and the service reduction to the portion east of UTSC makes total sense. The portion of the route east of UTSC has pretty low ridership during most time periods. I am often on a bus coming from Rouge Hill with maybe 2-3 people.
That area just does not have high ridership, and almost no one takes that bus to the GO station, so it will not affect riders anyway.
But I have to say from a service and even financial standpoint, it makes total sense not to be sending empty buses east of UTSC.
If you want more service then tell the people in South East Scarborough to start hopping on the bus. But given the high class nature of that area, I don’t think that will be a easy task, as most residents will not be caught on a bus in that area.
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with most of the routes people are discussing, but I have a question as to the overall theory here. Seeing that these changes are related to ridership growth, the numbers should generally show how much growth is expected.
I sampled at random a number of the lines on the spreadsheet. This shows how much headway is decreased (and therefore frequency increase), while expected loading is decreased. So, I would expect that the ratio of frequency (new/ old) * the ratio of average load (new / old) should be greater that 1.
I’ve actually used ( Old headway / New headway ) * ( New average load / Old average load).
Example:
Eglinton W (32) Saturday day:
( 5 / 3.916 ) * ( 34 / 37 ) = 1.173 or an expected increase of 17%.
This is an example where ridership is increased. However, for three other examples:
111 East Mall AM peak: 0.986
41 Keele AM peak: 0.988
504 King PM peak: 0.999
So – no real gain is projected in these cases. The numbers are close enough to 1 that perhaps rounding is at play. Maybe the host can check more of the numbers since he has them in a spreadsheet.
Just how much ridership growth are these changes expected to generate?
Another point, other than folks reading this blog or working for the TTC, how many people are aware of these increases in service?
Steve: The importance of the service increases is to avoid driving people away through deteriorating service first off, and secondly to give some breathing room to accommodate future growth. Something else you have to watch out for (although I didn’t include the details) is that some routes are changing vehicle types to ones with lower capacity and this triggers a need for more service.
Finally, it’s almost a month before these changes go into effect. The TTC typically announces this sort of thing much closer to the effective date.
LikeLike
I’ll be looking to see how the TTC markets the changes. I’m skeptical. As an example, I get many communiques from Ms. “I’m the Speaker and you’re not” Bussin – but never anything about TTC service changes. I don’t think a news release is an effective way to tell the public about service increases. Most people are not going to notice.
Now, some posts ago you were discussing how the TTC evaluates new services. People notice new services more than small headway changes. Do the schedule changes have a better payback that some of the proposals for new routes?
Steve: In many cases, these are changes on a scale that should be noticed. For one thing, many services should be less crowded provided the TTC actually manages to field the vehicles and manages the service (both points for debate). Service will exist at times it does not today, and this will take a while to fill in.
At the end of, say, six months or a year (the usual time for reviewing trial services), some of these extended time periods will not meet the criteria against which services were measured in the past (marginal growth in riding per customer gained). However, transit systems are networks and if we subject each component to strenuous accounting standards, we would quickly find many route segments that would vanish. They are safe today only because they are part of larger routes whose busy parts even out the financial analysis.
In a network context, the availability of new late-night service may also encourage use at other times. People won’t take transit if they cannot depend on it for their round trip. (This is not unlike the problem faced by a commuter who lives on a peak-only GO line.) Some of the new riding may appear on the “existing” service engendered by the availability of full off-peak operation.
As for the reduced crowding, this improves the lot of existing customers, and makes room for more. It also makes the service more resilient to delays because backlogs of loads at busy stops may actually fit on a vehicle carrying a small gap. Everyone knows how bad “service” gets on highways when they are full, and trying to cram more people on a bus service has the same effect — they spend far more time sitting at stops without contributing anything to productivity.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that you will not be able to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between every service change and every new rider because there are too many interacting factors.
LikeLike