Your wishlist of route changes, try to keep it realistic

[DJ Orion]

Well, let's see:

1. The current alternating-branching arrangement (123/123C and 123/123A) means double-headway waits on the differing segments (East Mall/Evans vs North Queen west of East Mall--yes there are people boarding and alighting at those stops)
2. The 123A in the afternoon peak periods (which alternates with 123) only goes to Sherway, which means service to Long Branch is worse in PM peak than at any other time of day at an 18-minute headway (and yes I've complained to the TTC about this): as good an argument for separate Sherway and Long Branch services as any (in the PM peak, I'll go to Islington Station and catch a 110A or 110B--slower but more frequent than 123 to Long Branch)
3. Standing on the southwest corner of Evans and Brown's line at the E/B Evans stop, you can catch a 123 to Long Branch or to Sherway--watch the sign! (At certain times of the day, they go through Sherway at the same time and therefore are running in convoy to add to the confusion)
4. However, if you want to go to Kipling, you might want to stand on the north side of Evans at the W/B stop, because a Kipling-bound 123C won't be coming back (although a Kipling-bound 123 will) (but you'll get to Kipling quicker from Evans/Browns Line on a E/B Kipling-bound 123 than on a W/B Kipling-bound 123C)
5. However, in the PM peak, you might want to catch a W/B Long-Branch-bound 123 from Evans/Browns Line to Sherway, because you may be able to catch a 123A at Sherway instead of waiting for the W/B Kipling-bound 123 (although an E/B Kipling-bound 123, should one show up shortly, will still be the fastest) [CONFUSED ENOUGH???]
6. The same rigamarole applies to other stops on Evans between Brown's Line and Sherway Gate, notably Gair Dr.
7. A Kipling-bound 123C actually does the west-on-Evans to north-on-West-Mall loop *twice* in one run for that feeling of deja-route all over again

1. Alternating between branches has been used on the 123 Shorncliffe since Early 90s (I think even 1989). There must be a reason behind having another branch of the 123 Shorncliffe to warrent this type of service to continue.

2. There must be a reason why the frequency is so poor in the PM Rush South of Sherway. Could be the fact that maybe higher frequencies aren't needed because the ridership may not warrent that type of service? If there is such high ridership south of Sherway then maybe 123 and 123C should be operated at all times including rush hours.

3. Like you said just watch the sign and they'll do fine. What's the point in having a destination sign on a bus? If the person can't be bothered to take a look at the sign to see where the bus is going then SOL for them. That's why there's signs.

4. You have a point there but I'm wondering on how many riders use that specific stop. If anything maybe a sign on that stop to direct riders to use the North side stop for Kipling Station bound might do some good. Either or they'll reach Kipling Station anyways.

5. To be honest? Yes it's confusing but I highly doubt it's making a huge impact on the 123 riders as you make it sound. If it was so bad as you've mentioned then the TTC would have done something long ago to fix that problem.

6. Read my reply numbers 3. 4. and 5.

7. If the rider knows he or she is on a Kipling bound bus and that's where he or she is intended on going then why should they care what roads the bus goes on? They're on the bus anyways that's going where they want to go and that's to Kipling Stn.

[Ed T.]

1. Alternating between branches has been used on the 123 Shorncliffe since Early 90s (I think even 1989). There must be a reason behind having another branch of the 123 Shorncliffe to warrent this type of service to continue.

2. There must be a reason why the frequency is so poor in the PM Rush South of Sherway. Could be the fact that maybe higher frequencies aren't needed because the ridership may not warrent that type of service? If there is such high ridership south of Sherway then maybe 123 and 123C should be operated at all times including rush hours.

3. Like you said just watch the sign and they'll do fine. What's the point in having a destination sign on a bus? If the person can't be bothered to take a look at the sign to see where the bus is going then SOL for them. That's why there's signs.

4. You have a point there but I'm wondering on how many riders use that specific stop. If anything maybe a sign on that stop to direct riders to use the North side stop for Kipling Station bound might do some good. Either or they'll reach Kipling Station anyways.

5. To be honest? Yes it's confusing but I highly doubt it's making a huge impact on the 123 riders as you make it sound. If it was so bad as you've mentioned then the TTC would have done something long ago to fix that problem.

6. Read my reply numbers 3. 4. and 5.

7. If the rider knows he or she is on a Kipling bound bus and that's where he or she is intended on going then why should they care what roads the bus goes on? They're on the bus anyways that's going where they want to go and that's to Kipling Stn.

1. This is a wishlist of route changes, so "tradition" isn't very convincing here. The 123A variant appears on a 1990 route map but not 1986. However, the 123 didn't go beyond Sherway to Long Branch loop until some time after 1993--the routing via Brown's line appears on a 1998 map. If we are going to argue tradition, then running Shorncliffe to Sherway only is the traditional route. (I suppose the route was created in the early 1980s; it's shown on a 1985 route map anyway.)

2. I have *no* idea why afternoon peak service is so bad, unless the buses are assigned elsewhere. The other possibility is that the TTC figures riders will take a 110 variant instead--I know I do, though I'd rather not. Service to Long Branch loop is on a 9-minute headway midday, then doubles to 18 minutes at 3 PM and stays at 18 minutes to 6 PM, when it improves to a 12-13 minute headway. Maybe the route could be a 20-minute route all day. Heck, if we train those Long Branch residents, a half-hourly bus will probably do! They have the Queen car to fall back on!

3. If the buses had clear destination signs like the streetcars, maybe. The destination is not very obvious on the signs found on the NF LFs and Orion VIIs. Especially when two 123 buses show up at the same time--and they do--it's not as easy to figure out which one you want as you'd think sitting in an easy chair. I've been on those paired buses, and seen the confusion of would-be riders.

5. Riders either have "figured" it out or their head hurts and they haven't bothered. How many times do TTC service planners stand at Evans and Gair and try to figure out which bus to take? As for the operators, *they* know where they're going, and that's good enough for them.

(I think that the Sherway "hub" and the Evans 15 bus are the Queensway equivalent of the 171 Mt. Dennis route and wherever Mt. Dennis operator changeoff locations are.)

[Orion V]

The only thing I can see for 43 Kennedy is one of 2 things

1. 43 "Steeles" branch and 43B "Scarborough Centre Stn" branch run on it's own headways meaning slower frequencies for the 43B while 43 has higher frequencies (Similar set up like 37 and 37A Islington)

2. 43B runs a slower frequency than the 43 branch but 43 branch will have then help of a new 43A "Finch" branch at certain times of the day. So while 43 and 43A will have same frequencies to provide a combined service south of Finch Ave 43B would act as an "Extra" service South of Progress Ave.

The 43E Kennedy Express is not a bad idea either but I'd hold off that till the SRT Construction starts then add the 43E Express branch between Steeles and Kennedy Stn. Local between Steeles and Sheppard then express to Kennedy Stn with a stop at Progress, Ellesmere and Lawrence only.

Besides the E branch, the 43 did have exactly the configuration you mentioned except the 43A was to Steeles while the 43 was to Finch back in the 80/90s with C overtaken by YRT 8. I don't see how reinstating the Finch branch will help anything especially after RGS part 2, TTC wanted most routes to run to its entirety instead of branches that stop before its furthest Toronto based terminus.

[DJ Orion]

Besides the E branch, the 43 did have exactly the configuration you mentioned except the 43A was to Steeles while the 43 was to Finch back in the 80/90s with C overtaken by YRT 8. I don't see how reinstating the Finch branch will help anything especially after RGS part 2, TTC wanted most routes to run to its entirety instead of branches that stop before its furthest Toronto based terminus.

I know all about the 43 Kennedy history and the 43 "Finch", 43A "Steeles", etc. What I'm getting at is having a scheduled short turn 43A "Finch" branch to provide better service at least between Finch and Kennedy Stn at certain times of the day. The only reason 43 "Finch" branch was eliminated is because before February 1994 that branch only ran on Sunday Evenings when the 43A "Steeles" branch didn't operate at that time of day. 43A then was extended to Steeles on Sunday Evenings and the "A" branch was changed to plain 43 "Steeles" branch.

1. This is a wishlist of route changes, so "tradition" isn't very convincing here. The 123A variant appears on a 1990 route map but not 1986. However, the 123 didn't go beyond Sherway to Long Branch loop until some time after 1993--the routing via Brown's line appears on a 1998 map. If we are going to argue tradition, then running Shorncliffe to Sherway only is the traditional route. (I suppose the route was created in the early 1980s; it's shown on a 1985 route map anyway.)

2. I have *no* idea why afternoon peak service is so bad, unless the buses are assigned elsewhere. The other possibility is that the TTC figures riders will take a 110 variant instead--I know I do, though I'd rather not. Service to Long Branch loop is on a 9-minute headway midday, then doubles to 18 minutes at 3 PM and stays at 18 minutes to 6 PM, when it improves to a 12-13 minute headway. Maybe the route could be a 20-minute route all day. Heck, if we train those Long Branch residents, a half-hourly bus will probably do! They have the Queen car to fall back on!

3. If the buses had clear destination signs like the streetcars, maybe. The destination is not very obvious on the signs found on the NF LFs and Orion VIIs. Especially when two 123 buses show up at the same time--and they do--it's not as easy to figure out which one you want as you'd think sitting in an easy chair. I've been on those paired buses, and seen the confusion of would-be riders.

5. Riders either have "figured" it out or their head hurts and they haven't bothered. How many times do TTC service planners stand at Evans and Gair and try to figure out which bus to take? As for the operators, *they* know where they're going, and that's good enough for them.

(I think that the Sherway "hub" and the Evans 15 bus are the Queensway equivalent of the 171 Mt. Dennis route and wherever Mt. Dennis operator changeoff locations are.)

Honestly I still think theres nothing wrong with the 123 Shorncliffe. If there was too much "confusion" going on with that route then a whole piss load of people would be calling and conplaining to the TTC about how complex the route is. Then the TTC would have looked into that and made changes to better service the customers. Sherway is like a hub of sorts for Southern Etobicoke minus the subway stations so any route that's near the Sherway area would make a stop at Sherway for riders to transfer between TTC buses, Connect with MT Route 4 or spend their money at Sherway Gardens and shop.

[Mike]

 

 

1. This is a wishlist of route changes, so "tradition" isn't very convincing here. The 123A variant appears on a 1990 route map but not 1986. However, the 123 didn't go beyond Sherway to Long Branch loop until some time after 1993--the routing via Brown's line appears on a 1998 map. If we are going to argue tradition, then running Shorncliffe to Sherway only is the traditional route. (I suppose the route was created in the early 1980s; it's shown on a 1985 route map anyway.)

123 was started in February 1984. 123A was created in February 1989 and the 123 branch was extended to Long Branch in February 1994 (123B/C were created at that time as well).

[BBC 9197]

18 Beverly

I think there should be a route southbound from St George stn down to the new condos southeast of the CN Tower via St George and Beverly.

27 Dovercourt South

I would also like to see a Dovercourt bus running south from Ossington stn to Queen. Call it 27 Dovercourt. It's a little tight at the bottom of Dovercourt, similar to the north end of Symington, so some recovery time would be required to ensure reliable service, 5 mins at Ossington stn should be sufficient.

[Mike]

18 Beverly

I think there should be a route southbound from St George stn down to the new condos southeast of the CN Tower via St George and Beverly.

I very much doubt that people living in the condos at CN Tower have any reason to go north to St. George Station on a basis regular enough to justify a bus route as most of them probably work in the Financial district and if they wanted to go to St. George Station it would be faster to either take the subway from Union or the Spadina streetcar.

27 Dovercourt South

I would also like to see a Dovercourt bus running south from Ossington stn to Queen. Call it 27 Dovercourt. It's a little tight at the bottom of Dovercourt, similar to the north end of Symington, so some recovery time would be required to ensure reliable service, 5 mins at Ossington stn should be sufficient.

Dovercourt is only 300m from Ossington, it seems unlikely that this route would attract new riders rather than take the riders currently using the 63 Ossington bus which is very frequent.

[BBC 9197]

I very much doubt that people living in the condos at CN Tower have any reason to go north to St. George Station on a basis regular enough to justify a bus route as most of them probably work in the Financial district and if they wanted to go to St. George Station it would be faster to either take the subway from Union or the Spadina streetcar.

Dovercourt is only 300m from Ossington, it seems unlikely that this route would attract new riders rather than take the riders currently using the 63 Ossington bus which is very frequent.

18:

You totally missed the point, that is just where the route would terminate. The idea is to service U of T and the St George and Beverly St communities, yes the 510 is close but I think there would be a market for this service, as long as there was a simple schedule say every 20 mins on the 00,20,40,00 from each end so that people could plan to catch a specific trip.

27:

Fair enough, but with both service running from the same stn people could choose to take which ever came first as they do with the 161 and the 63 now. Also with the Dufferin Jog being eliminated in the very near future this new rte would be the closest north/south rte to a very trendy up and coming neighbourhood with much development planned.

[Mike]

18:

You totally missed the point, that is just where the route would terminate. The idea is to service U of T and the St George and Beverly St communities, yes the 510 is close but I think there would be a market for this service, as long as there was a simple schedule say every 20 mins on the 00,20,40,00 from each end so that people could plan to catch a specific trip.

I don't think I missed anything. People living at the bottom of the route (the condos by CN tower) are not likeley to use this bus to go as far north as U of T since more likely than not they are in the workforce and are not students. Other then AGO, U of T and St. George Station there is no other destinations along this route for them to go to and they probably don't go to AGO often enough to justify a bus route and they can get to the subway much faster by going to Union Station. From the other end of the route, there aren't that many U of T students living on Beverly and those that do live there wouldn't be spending extra money that they probably don't have riding this infrequent bus when you could walk from Dundas to U of T in 20 minutes. To sum up, I don't think there would be enough riders on this route to justify even 20 minute service (which would likely require at least 2 buses).

27:

Fair enough, but with both service running from the same stn people could choose to take which ever came first as they do with the 161 and the 63 now. Also with the Dufferin Jog being eliminated in the very near future this new rte would be the closest north/south rte to a very trendy up and coming neighbourhood with much development planned.

The difference is that the 161 is really designed to transport passengers to/from the Rogers Rd areas so its target group is different from that of 63, while the route you propose will essentially target the same passengers that are already using routes 29 (500m from Dovercourt) and 63.

[6254]

I am not sure if it is still the case now, but in the past, the round trip time for 43 and 43B were 70 and 50 minutes. Obviously 70 mins is not enough for the 43 and 50 mins is too much for the 43B, so the 43B was acting like a relief for the 43 and drivers can take a longer break while working on the 43B.

The only thing I can see for 43 Kennedy is one of 2 things

1. 43 "Steeles" branch and 43B "Scarborough Centre Stn" branch run on it's own headways meaning slower frequencies for the 43B while 43 has higher frequencies (Similar set up like 37 and 37A Islington)

2. 43B runs a slower frequency than the 43 branch but 43 branch will have then help of a new 43A "Finch" branch at certain times of the day. So while 43 and 43A will have same frequencies to provide a combined service south of Finch Ave 43B would act as an "Extra" service South of Progress Ave.

The 43E Kennedy Express is not a bad idea either but I'd hold off that till the SRT Construction starts then add the 43E Express branch between Steeles and Kennedy Stn. Local between Steeles and Sheppard then express to Kennedy Stn with a stop at Progress, Ellesmere and Lawrence only.

[D40-90]

18 Beverly

I think there should be a route southbound from St George stn down to the new condos southeast of the CN Tower via St George and Beverly.

27 Dovercourt South

I would also like to see a Dovercourt bus running south from Ossington stn to Queen. Call it 27 Dovercourt. It's a little tight at the bottom of Dovercourt, similar to the north end of Symington, so some recovery time would be required to ensure reliable service, 5 mins at Ossington stn should be sufficient.

Wasn't there a Cummnity bus route, 401? that ran south from St george Station as a pilot project back in 1991 or '92.

[Mike]

 

 

Wasn't there a Cummnity bus route, 401? that ran south from St george Station as a pilot project back in 1991 or '92.

You're thinking of the 425 route that ran from January 1995 until June of that year. 401 was the Bathurst North community bus service that ran from June 1992 until September 1995.

[Orion V]

I am not sure if it is still the case now, but in the past, the round trip time for 43 and 43B were 70 and 50 minutes. Obviously 70 mins is not enough for the 43 and 50 mins is too much for the 43B, so the 43B was acting like a relief for the 43 and drivers can take a longer break while working on the 43B.

It depends on which day and time you're referring to. Since I started the discussion with midday weekday in mind, I'll take an assumption that you were referring to this specific interval. The 43 is still 70min while the 43B is now 42min.

[D40-90]

You're thinking of the 425 route that ran from January 1995 until June of that year. 401 was the Bathurst North community bus service that ran from June 1992 until September 1995.

Thanks. I got the number mixed up. Since it's been 15 years, do you think it can be brought back? Route 425?

[2822]

Thanks. I got the number mixed up. Since it's been 15 years, do you think it can be brought back? Route 425?

I don't think we have enough community buses as it is unless they convert an ELF to a community bus.

[wil9402]

I don't think we have enough community buses as it is unless they convert an ELF to a community bus.

That would be difficult to do as they need fareboxes. If a farebox was to be added to an ELF the operator whould have to keep turning his head/body towards the passenger door behind him to watch people pay their fare.

[cmc12]

My post will focus on TTC routes operating in York Region, and how TTC can limit routes operating into York Region.

107 Keele North - Now this is where things get interesting. The only branch which I can see a prolonged TTC operation would be the 107B, since it's the only branch that strays away from Keele the most. All other branches I can easily see YRT taking over, since they relatively stay on Keele. Perhaps the YRT 22 can be extended south, but since this is a TTC thread, I'll stop there.

There is so much I could say about how to improve this route...but I'll keep it at this: Combine the C and F branches, have them run all day. A good chunk of YRT 22 ridership comes from the subdivision at Keele/Kirby (the rest goes to Seneca College and back). In fact, I remember having this conversation somewhere here before...

[The Canadian Roadgeek]

YRT / Viva Routes:

42 Berczy - South Unionville

In effort to improve to improve travel time, I think the route should be re-routed via east on Manhattan Drive past Shorthill Drive, then north of Saratoga Road, passing 16th Avenue to Stonebridge Drive, resuming current's alignment. This is now deem possible since the intersection at 16th Avenue / Saratoga - Stonebridge is now due to be traffic signaled.

43 Rodick

Very controversial. Actually, it doesn't receive much support (at least I think so). But I would like to see a route serving Rodick Road during rush hours anyways. The route will loop north on Rodick Road, east on MacRill Road, south on Village Gate Drive, and then west on Calvert Road, and back to Rodick Road. Then loops south on Rodick Road, west on 14th Avenue, north on Hobbs Gate, onto Konrad Crescent, then out to Woodbine Avenue via Shields Gate, then north on Woodbine, followed by east on Miller Avenue, finally back to Rodick Road.

This would serve the Rodick Road corridor (residential), and the industrial park south of 407 ETR.

90B Leslie - Don Mills

In effort to better serve the Seneca Newnham Campus (and since the Finch Loop is now completed), I think the route should be diverted (at least selected trips anyways) to the Seneca Loop on Finch Avenue East. So in essence, 90 can serve the Don Mills / Leslie Corridor proper (i.e. faster travel time), while 90B diverts to places around this corridor (i.e. Seneca and the Beaver Creek Business Park, therefore a bit slower in travel time)

603 Viva Purple / 604 Viva Pink / 606 Viva Green

As mentioned in the YRT thread. In an effort to improve travel time, Viva Purple and Viva Green should use the new alignment of Enterprise Drive and Unionville Gate to Kennedy Road, instead of diving south, diverting to the YMCA via Rivis Road. This would involve a new vivastation located at Rivis & Enterprise.

Viva Pink will keep its current alignment.

------

I have e-mailed the region about these suggested route changes. Waiting for their reply...

[vivablue5215]

YRT / Viva Routes:

43 Rodick

Very controversial. Actually, it doesn't receive much support (at least I think so). But I would like to see a route serving Rodick Road during rush hours anyways. The route will loop north on Rodick Road, east on MacRill Road, south on Village Gate Drive, and then west on Calvert Road, and back to Rodick Road. Then loops south on Rodick Road, west on 14th Avenue, north on Hobbs Gate, onto Konrad Crescent, then out to Woodbine Avenue via Shields Gate, then north on Woodbine, followed by east on Miller Avenue, finally back to Rodick Road.

This would serve the Rodick Road corridor (residential), and the industrial park south of 407 ETR.

You're gonna run into a lot of complaints about this route.

Starting from the north, the 40 had a proposal of looping via Macrill a few years ago. Unfortunately that had to be dropped, because the NIMBYs living along Macrill, Village Gate, and Calvert do not want any bus service. Plus, most of the residents there already own 3-4 cars, so you're not gonna generate any ridership there.

Heading south on Rodick Road, you're going to generate nothing in ridership, as most of the ridership there is focused along John Button, which has developed into a transit-oriented community. Noone on Morrison Crescent would take transit, and if they do, they would walk to Apple Creek to take the 40.

Your industrial park idea would work if the ridership trends work your way, but they don't. 95% of the workers along the 14th Avenue/Woodbine Avenue corridors actually either live on Woodbine north of Hillmount, or they live in the City of Toronto. It's complicated, I know, but I've lived and had my parents work along the Woodbine corridor for more than 10 years now, and I can guarantee you noone working along Woodbine or 14th Avenue commute northeast to Rodick Road.

Plus, why serve Miller Avenue? It's a waste dump site there. If anything, go back via 14th Avenue. Or even serve Riviera Drive.

Not to degrade your ideas of course, they were really thoughtful IMHO.

[The Canadian Roadgeek]

You're gonna run into a lot of complaints about this route.

Starting from the north, the 40 had a proposal of looping via Macrill a few years ago. Unfortunately that had to be dropped, because the NIMBYs living along Macrill, Village Gate, and Calvert do not want any bus service. Plus, most of the residents there already own 3-4 cars, so you're not gonna generate any ridership there.

Heading south on Rodick Road, you're going to generate nothing in ridership, as most of the ridership there is focused along John Button, which has developed into a transit-oriented community. Noone on Morrison Crescent would take transit, and if they do, they would walk to Apple Creek to take the 40.

Your industrial park idea would work if the ridership trends work your way, but they don't. 95% of the workers along the 14th Avenue/Woodbine Avenue corridors actually either live on Woodbine north of Hillmount, or they live in the City of Toronto. It's complicated, I know, but I've lived and had my parents work along the Woodbine corridor for more than 10 years now, and I can guarantee you noone working along Woodbine or 14th Avenue commute northeast to Rodick Road.

Plus, why serve Miller Avenue? It's a waste dump site there. If anything, go back via 14th Avenue. Or even serve Riviera Drive.

Not to degrade your ideas of course, they were really thoughtful IMHO.

Thanks for your feedback

Maybe making the route 43 Rodick - Markland? Like instead of looping at the northern end of Rodick, the route should go west on Calvert, past Woodbine, north on Markland, and north on Woodbine By-Pass (I know the construction is not quite completed yet), and then somehow loop back near Victoria Square (maybe divert to Honda), but this is kind of overlapping Route 24D/224B/224D :angry:

And the Hillmount area seems really over-served... Maybe it's just cause I'm not really familiar with the locale...

and you have the point on Miller Avenue. The route would be better off on Riviera Drive.

[vivablue5215]

Maybe making the route 43 Rodick - Markland? Like instead of looping at the northern end of Rodick, the route should go west on Calvert, past Woodbine, north on Markland, and north on Woodbine By-Pass (I know the construction is not quite completed yet), and then somehow loop back near Victoria Square (maybe divert to Honda), but this is kind of overlapping Route 24D/224B/224D

And the Hillmount area seems really over-served... Maybe it's just cause I'm not really familiar with the locale...

The Hillmount area is quite busy during rush hours, hence the frequency jump on the 224D. Otherwise, yes it is quite overserved. I rather see the 4A operate weekends as well, since the Berczy community is quite transit-oriented (route 8 buses usually head down south past Major Mack quite full). That way perhaps you can operate every 45 minutes for both branches.

The Markland diversion also wouldn't work, because the passengers would just rather take the 224D, which operates every 13 minutes during rush hour.

However, your idea of serving the Woodbine By-Pass is actually a good idea. Hopefully YRT realizes the insight of "build it and they'll come", something which they failed to do in the Cornell and Thornhill Woods communities. However the most I can see which would come out of it is an extension of the 40 or a new 40 branch.

[CLRV4037]

I don't think I missed anything. People living at the bottom of the route (the condos by CN tower) are not likeley to use this bus to go as far north as U of T since more likely than not they are in the workforce and are not students. Other then AGO, U of T and St. George Station there is no other destinations along this route for them to go to and they probably don't go to AGO often enough to justify a bus route and they can get to the subway much faster by going to Union Station. From the other end of the route, there aren't that many U of T students living on Beverly and those that do live there wouldn't be spending extra money that they probably don't have riding this infrequent bus when you could walk from Dundas to U of T in 20 minutes. To sum up, I don't think there would be enough riders on this route to justify even 20 minute service (which would likely require at least 2 buses).

The difference is that the 161 is really designed to transport passengers to/from the Rogers Rd areas so its target group is different from that of 63, while the route you propose will essentially target the same passengers that are already using routes 29 (500m from Dovercourt) and 63.

Your analogy of the 161 Rogers Rd bus is not complete. I have driven the route enough times to know that the section on Dovercourt is just as busy as the section along Rogers Rd. In addition to Ossington Station, many of the people who travel along the Rogers Rd. portion get on at St. Clair. People will take any service if it gets them closer to their destination. That's why having service on Dovercourt south of Bloor to Queen and a Bevery-St. George bus is not such a bad idea. Remember there was streetcar service on Dovercourt between Bloor and College at one time with parallel service on Ossington for part of the way provided by the Harbord car.

This is not about stealing passengers from one route to another, its about providing passengers with a choice and a more dense network of transit. Using your analogy, why has the TTC bothered keeping the Wellesley bus since the portion on Harbord runs closely parallel to Bloor. It is practically the same distance from Harbord to Bloor as it is from Dovercourt to Ossington.

I am definitely in favour of running a 27 Dovercourt, and an 18 Beverly-St. George service. As well, there should be other services:

93 Brock. Bloor - Exhibition. The loop at the the top would be N Brock, E Bloor, S Dufferin, W Croatia, S Brock. At Queen it would then use Dufferin and go down to the West gates.

47 Lansdowne should go down to Lake Shore. via S Jameson, W Lake Shore, N Dowling, E King, N Jameson.

114 Jarvis. St. Clair Stn. - Queen's Quay. From St. Clair Stn. E St. Clair, S Mt. Pleasant/Jarvis, E Queen's Quay, N Sherbourne, E Lake Shore, S Bonnycastle, W Queen's Quay, N Jarvis.

118 Logan. Cosburn - Lake Shore. From Lake Shore, N Logan all the way Gowan (1 block S of Cosburn), E Gowan, S Carlaw all the way to Gerrard, W Gerrard, S Logan, E Eastern, S Carlaw, W Lake Shore.

13 Neville Park. Bring it back full time.

[AmoniumNitrate]

47 Lansdowne should go down to Lake Shore. via S Jameson, W Lake Shore, N Dowling, E King, N Jameson.

I love that idea, but I think 47 Lansdowne is already a pretty long route (Queen street west --> Bridgeland Avenue). I use that route almost everyday and it takes around 1hr 10 minutes to make a complete cycle (Complete cycle = Yorkdale station to Queen Street West and back around to Yorkdale station).

[Mike]

Your analogy of the 161 Rogers Rd bus is not complete. I have driven the route enough times to know that the section on Dovercourt is just as busy as the section along Rogers Rd. In addition to Ossington Station, many of the people who travel along the Rogers Rd. portion get on at St. Clair. People will take any service if it gets them closer to their destination. That's why having service on Dovercourt south of Bloor to Queen and a Bevery-St. George bus is not such a bad idea. Remember there was streetcar service on Dovercourt between Bloor and College at one time with parallel service on Ossington for part of the way provided by the Harbord car.

This is not about stealing passengers from one route to another, its about providing passengers with a choice and a more dense network of transit. Using your analogy, why has the TTC bothered keeping the Wellesley bus since the portion on Harbord runs closely parallel to Bloor. It is practically the same distance from Harbord to Bloor as it is from Dovercourt to Ossington.

I am definitely in favour of running a 27 Dovercourt, and an 18 Beverly-St. George service. As well, there should be other services:

I would be in favor of these services only when other (existing) services are running frequently enough not to have crush loads at 10 p.m. (like on the 60 for example).

[wil9402]

I am definitely in favour of running a 27 Dovercourt, and an 18 Beverly-St. George service. As well, there should be other services:

93 Brock. Bloor - Exhibition. The loop at the the top would be N Brock, E Bloor, S Dufferin, W Croatia, S Brock. At Queen it would then use Dufferin and go down to the West gates.

47 Lansdowne should go down to Lake Shore. via S Jameson, W Lake Shore, N Dowling, E King, N Jameson.

114 Jarvis. St. Clair Stn. - Queen's Quay. From St. Clair Stn. E St. Clair, S Mt. Pleasant/Jarvis, E Queen's Quay, N Sherbourne, E Lake Shore, S Bonnycastle, W Queen's Quay, N Jarvis.

When I was younger and didn't have internet I use to think of new routes and branches. All the above routes were some routes I thought of as well. If I can find my maps I'll post one that haven't been posted yet.

I love that idea, but I think 47 Lansdowne is already a pretty long route (Queen street west --> Bridgeland Avenue). I use that route almost everyday and it takes around 1hr 10 minutes to make a complete cycle (Complete cycle = Yorkdale station to Queen Street West and back around to Yorkdale station).

What's your point? 54A takes close to 1 hour 30 minutes just to do a one way trip in peak periods.