Jump to content

Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions


Orion V

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, raptorjays said:

I know it is a meaningless, but do not be allergic and overreact on my question.

I don’t know about Cummer or York Mills, but I think 30 Lambton should be changed.. and it could be changed if that Junction area thing goes through.

Who's overreacting? It's a genuine, if non-trivial question - you are suggesting changes that will impact thousands and thousands of people, and while the impact may seem small or innocuous to you, maybe it isn't to them. Or maybe there are additional knock-on effects that you haven't considered.

 

What I am asking is if you have considered all of those things before you made your suggestion. And frankly considering your response, and the fact that not only have you blown off responding to my questions but also trying to justify it, it seems to me that you really don't give a shit about them. You just want everything to fit some sort of crazy ideal that you have floating around in your cranium.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Not every city has names for it's routes. TTC has been using names since the beginning of time. route numbers for buses only began in the 50s and only in the past 2 years they organized the service summary by numbers instead of names.

Some people are better remembering numbers, others names. Why not give them the choice?

Tellingly, after more than thirty years of number-only designations for streetcar routes, both the Flexities and bus shuttles include route names like "KING" and "CARLTON".

If you are wondering why Carlton is named like that when it spends much more time on College and Gerrard, take a look at the route histories on Transit Toronto.

Although I would totally support CARLTON being renamed HOWARD PARK-DUNDAS-COLLEGE-CARLTON-PARLIAMENT-GERRARD-COXWELL-GERRARD-MAIN just to see the sign boxes explode. B)

4 hours ago, raptorjays said:

I know it is a meaningless, but do not be allergic and overreact on my question.

I don’t know about Cummer or York Mills, but I think 30 Lambton should be changed.. and it could be changed if that Junction area thing goes through. 

That is not a bad idea However, I don’t know if the TTC re-uses a route number which was scrapped. If 124 Sunnybrook is absorbed into 28 Bayview South..

The only problem is that 28 Bayview South doesn’t have high ridership so it might not be necessary to divide it to two branches

What's the matter with "LAMBTON"?

By the way, I find it funny that 86 SCARBOROUGH might be okay because it runs in Scarborough. That's like renaming 46 MARTIN GROVE as 46 ETOBICOKE, or maybe giving up on HOWARD PARK-DUNDAS-COLLEGE-CARLTON-PARLIAMENT-GERRARD-COXWELL-GERRARD-MAIN and just calling it 506 TORONTO.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Downsview 108 said:

They should rename the entire TTC, Route 515 Foam. 

Have you ever watched a dog chasing after a car, barking like crazy?  It kind of reminds me of foamers chasing buses and the same question applies to both, "What would you do with that thing if you caught it?"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Some people are better remembering numbers, others names. Why not give them the choice?

Tellingly, after more than thirty years of number-only designations for streetcar routes, both the Flexities and bus shuttles include route names like "KING" and "CARLTON".

If you are wondering why Carlton is named like that when it spends much more time on College and Gerrard, take a look at the route histories on Transit Toronto.

Although I would totally support CARLTON being renamed HOWARD PARK-DUNDAS-COLLEGE-CARLTON-PARLIAMENT-GERRARD-COXWELL-GERRARD-MAIN just to see the sign boxes explode. B)

What's the matter with "LAMBTON"?

By the way, I find it funny that 86 SCARBOROUGH might be okay because it runs in Scarborough. That's like renaming 46 MARTIN GROVE as 46 ETOBICOKE, or maybe giving up on HOWARD PARK-DUNDAS-COLLEGE-CARLTON-PARLIAMENT-GERRARD-COXWELL-GERRARD-MAIN and just calling it 506 TORONTO.

I also think more people will remember the number rather than the name. 

46 Martin Grove is ok because the majority of the route includes Martin Grove Rd. 

At least Scarborough is a well-known name and people can easily remember.. However, Lambton is just a small neighbourhood which is enough to cover only 1/10 of the route 30 Lambton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2019 at 3:58 AM, raptorjays said:

Do you think some of those routes should be re-named?

30 Lambton

This is one of few bus routes which has a name of the neighbourhood (not the road name).  However, the neighbourhood of Lambton only covers between Humber River and Jane St, which is only about 1km out of 9km of the route. I know 40 Junction is also similar, but the neighbourhood of Junction covers little more than half of the route. I know route 108 Downsview was changed to Driftwood.. (Even though Driftwood Ave is just less than half of the route)

Meanwhile 100% of the route 78 St.Andrew runs within the neighbourhood.. and 86 Scarborough runs within Scarborough, so it is reasonable. 

Also, there are many routes which has a name of the destination neighbourhood (like 115 Silver Hills, 124 Sunnybrook)

The problem is the name 'Dundas' belongs to 505.. So Dundas West might not be a bad idea. However, if either 30 or 40 was running from Kipling to Dundas West Station, it could have been better to get 'Dundas West'. 

42 Cummer

As a matter of fact, the length of Cummer Ave of the route is only 4km long while McNicoll is about 10km long. So I think it might be better to change them to Cummer-McNicoll (Like 117 Alness-Chesswood) or just McNicoll. 

95 York Mills

Similar to 42 Cummer, 

The length of York Mills Rd of the route is 7km long while Ellesmere Rd is 14.1km. (And few hundred meter of Parkwood Village Dr) Maybe some people living in Scarborough might not be familiar with the name, and there are no buses with 'Ellesmere' as well. Many people will know the bus number, but not the route name. However, I think it could cause confusion in Scarborough because Ellesmere is more well known than York Mills.

 

One could also argue that the 14 Glencairn should be changed back to 14 Chaplin Crescent. The reason it was changed in the first place is the name of the station it serves, namely Glencairn. The 95 is also named "York Mills" because of this. (I think?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Orion VI said:

One could also argue that the 14 Glencairn should be changed back to 14 Chaplin Crescent. The reason it was changed in the first place is the name of the station it serves, namely Glencairn. The 95 is also named "York Mills" because of this. (I think?)

Well, no.  The 95 York Mills has existed for far longer than York Mills Station has.  The 14 was also renamed before Glencarin Station was opened.  It was renamed mostly because of a route change that extended it further over Glencarin ave after the North Yonge subway exstention. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, raptorjays said:

That is not a bad idea However, I don’t know if the TTC re-uses a route number which was scrapped. If 124 Sunnybrook is absorbed into 28 Bayview South..

The only problem is that 28 Bayview South doesn’t have high ridership so it might not be necessary to divide it to two branches

The 124 has so it may be easier to replicate the 28 DAVISVILLE service in the 1980s under the 28B branch while the 28A may try. Thanks for the advice @raptorjays

On the other hand, since 1996, there hasn't been a bus service on Prince Edward Dr. north of Bloor (where the original 66 PRINCE EDWARD began), do you think the TTC may able to restore service on that route by absorbing the 55 WARREN PARK? This will replicate the original routing that existed before the service cuts. Presently, the 66 routing is using the old 13 BERRY ROAD routing which was merged in 1970. The length of it between Bloor and Dundas is 1.4km with a 17 minute walk between the two streets, although the condominiums on Dundas and Prince Edward are being built as well as lack of service to a community centre and Lambton-Kingsway JMS.

If they were to revive service north of Bloor, I think IMHO, the 66A can run between Humber Loop and Warren Park via Old Mill Stn. similar to the original with service split into 66C (Warren Park) and 66D (Humber Loop) during rush hours only (66B "Park Lawn/Lakeshore" branch will stay the same and not affected by the change.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BYD said:

The 124 has so it may be easier to replicate the 28 DAVISVILLE service in the 1980s under the 28B branch while the 28A may try. Thanks for the advice @raptorjays

On the other hand, since 1996, there hasn't been a bus service on Prince Edward Dr. north of Bloor (where the original 66 PRINCE EDWARD began), do you think the TTC may able to restore service on that route by absorbing the 55 WARREN PARK? This will replicate the original routing that existed before the service cuts. Presently, the 66 routing is using the old 13 BERRY ROAD routing which was merged in 1970. The length of it between Bloor and Dundas is 1.4km with a 17 minute walk between the two streets, although the condominiums on Dundas and Prince Edward are being built as well as lack of service to a community centre and Lambton-Kingsway JMS.

If they were to revive service north of Bloor, I think IMHO, the 66A can run between Humber Loop and Warren Park via Old Mill Stn. similar to the original with service split into 66C (Warren Park) and 66D (Humber Loop) during rush hours only (66B "Park Lawn/Lakeshore" branch will stay the same and not affected by the change.)

 

Why tho.  It's clear that ridership on the northern part of Prince Edward isn't high enough to deserve a bus route so what is the point.  If I were to change anything about the 66, I would increase the frequency of buses on the 66B. I ride the route every day and I can attest to some amount of overcrowding on the route.   The explosive growth of the Humber Bay area I think we need higher service, not service on the northern part.

If you look at the nature of the Warren Park-Lambton Kingsway area, you'll see it's (for the most part) a low-density residential area with single-family dwellings.  Overall, I don't think the ridership would justify any more transit service.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the point of rerouting the 28 to Lawrence? Is there some study that indicates there is more demand for a connection between the Brick Works and Lawrence as opposed to Davisville? These changes don't come for free and a lot of your suggestions feel like rerouting for the sake of it, rather than to fulfill some service need.

There's no point in changing the 69 either. The bus runs in a primarily residential setting and those who need it will be familiarized with how it works at this point. Why add a new route into the mix and force them to relearn the service pattern? It's not even a comparable situation to the set up on the 59 at the turn of the decade, it's a very straightforward easy to follow square.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BYD said:

The 124 has so it may be easier to replicate the 28 DAVISVILLE service in the 1980s under the 28B branch while the 28A may try. Thanks for the advice @raptorjays

On the other hand, since 1996, there hasn't been a bus service on Prince Edward Dr. north of Bloor (where the original 66 PRINCE EDWARD began), do you think the TTC may able to restore service on that route by absorbing the 55 WARREN PARK? This will replicate the original routing that existed before the service cuts. Presently, the 66 routing is using the old 13 BERRY ROAD routing which was merged in 1970. The length of it between Bloor and Dundas is 1.4km with a 17 minute walk between the two streets, although the condominiums on Dundas and Prince Edward are being built as well as lack of service to a community centre and Lambton-Kingsway JMS.

If they were to revive service north of Bloor, I think IMHO, the 66A can run between Humber Loop and Warren Park via Old Mill Stn. similar to the original with service split into 66C (Warren Park) and 66D (Humber Loop) during rush hours only (66B "Park Lawn/Lakeshore" branch will stay the same and not affected by the change.)

 

You need a time machine dude. All you want is to restore the past. The 66 would barely gets any riders north of Bloor.

 

14 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

What would be the point of rerouting the 28 to Lawrence? Is there some study that indicates there is more demand for a connection between the Brick Works and Lawrence as opposed to Davisville? These changes don't come for free and a lot of your suggestions feel like rerouting for the sake of it, rather than to fulfill some service need.

There's no point in changing the 69 either. The bus runs in a primarily residential setting and those who need it will be familiarized with how it works at this point. Why add a new route into the mix and force them to relearn the service pattern? It's not even a comparable situation to the set up on the 59 at the turn of the decade, it's a very straightforward easy to follow square.

No point, It just makes the trip longer for people. Many people who comes from downtown or east end would just have a longer trip. Lawrence Stn isn't a major destination and a much lower usage station than others nearby. There are more people transfering from the 11 southbound to the 124 than anymore needing the 28 at Lawrence. I think that's why it was setup that way back then. It gives people on the 11 faster access to the subway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driving home from a restaurant last night, behind 1003 on the 14. Noticed the rear bumper has "1046" written on it with white marker on the right side. I'm assuming that means the OG HEV 1046? Do buses normally interchange bumpers, or was this a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Orion VI said:

Driving home from a restaurant last night, behind 1003 on the 14. Noticed the rear bumper has "1046" written on it with white marker on the right side. I'm assuming that means the OG HEV 1046? Do buses normally interchange bumpers, or was this a mistake?

Parts are designed to be replaceable, and in a lot of cases that means that they can be swapped between units.

 

In the case of the rear bumper, it happens to mount to the propulsion module on the Orion VIIs - when they remove the rear axle and driveline in one piece for rebuilds, the bumper comes with it. As part of the rebuild they will install a different module with freshly rebuilt components on it, so that may be the reason why the bumper says something else.

 

Or its as simple as just that portion of the bumper has been swapped over.

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

Parts are designed to be replaceable, and in a lot of cases that means that they can be swapped between units.

 

In the case of the rear bumper, it happens to mount to the propulsion module on the Orion VIIs - when they remove the rear axle and driveline in one piece for rebuilds, the bumper comes with it. As part of the rebuild they will install a different module with freshly rebuilt components on it, so that may be the reason why the bumper says something else.

 

Or its as simple as just that portion of the bumper has been swapped over.

 

Dan

In this case it’s the former. The hybrids have a cradle subassembly that comes out of the bus not unlike the GMs used to. The rear axle isn’t part of that, however.

it just doesn’t make sense to have the shop floor clogged up with idle powertrain packages waiting for the full 6 or so weeks for the donor bus to be finished, since the powertrain revamp is completed much faster. 

Once finished, they go in the first recipient that becomes available, hence the number disparity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

In this case it’s the former. The hybrids have a cradle subassembly that comes out of the bus not unlike the GMs used to. The rear axle isn’t part of that, however.

it just doesn’t make sense to have the shop floor clogged up with idle powertrain packages waiting for the full 6 or so weeks for the donor bus to be finished, since the powertrain revamp is completed much faster. 

Once finished, they go in the first recipient that becomes available, hence the number disparity.

So, theoretically, 1003 needed a new bumper, and the pre-rebulit 1046 (???)  one was available. I'm assuming it was recent, because the marker was still legible. Something along these lines?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the bumper. The whole back end.

1003’s powertrain was removed, probably for it’s 3 year PMP (preventative maintenance program- mostly to access and replace hydraulic hoses for assured reliability and to ward off fires) and an already built up one from 1046 was put in.

In a couple of weeks, one will be running around with 1003 marked on it, and so on, and so on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...