Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions

[Xtrazsteve]

29 minutes ago, MRD10 said:

I actually believe the free fare under 12 was an excellent decision, in fact I believe it should be extended to all those under 18!

Many teens, like 12 year old's, are unable to support themselves financially to purchase fares, often relying on parents and guardians. 

I've heard stories of honest kids who choose to walk a few kilometers to school instead of taking the TTC, because the round trip of $4.50 was unaffordable for their family. 

Additionally, many teens do not own a private vehicle, let alone drive! Free transit to teens provides a sense of independence, as they are able to travel to their home, school or anywhere where they need to be, without the fear of unaffordability! Additionally, it will create transit riders for life, eliminating cars off the streets and creating a more eco and sustainable city.

While the TTC will experience a decrease in their revenue stream, it can be made up with increased transit funding from the federal and provincial government's. I probably will get a lot of comments from this post, but I strongly believe the pros outweigh the cons. Affordability should never have to become a barrier in being able to access transit!

How about they offer free riders only at a specific time. Then offer a number of free riders per month via a presto card. It shouldn't be an unlimited ride monthly pass privilege, especially if you are advocating for under 18.

Offering free rides turns down the actually ridership. Personally most people would avoid riding with a bunch of kids running up and down the bus. 

[MK78]

15 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Personally most people would avoid riding with a bunch of kids running up and down the bus. 

I've been able to adjust my work hours to get around that thankfully in recent years. But if i'm late by half an hour leaving, its a freaking nightmare.

[lip]

2 hours ago, MRD10 said:

I actually believe the free fare under 12 was an excellent decision, in fact I believe it should be extended to all those under 18!

Many teens, like 12 year old's, are unable to support themselves financially to purchase fares, often relying on parents and guardians. 

I've heard stories of honest kids who choose to walk a few kilometers to school instead of taking the TTC, because the round trip of $4.50 was unaffordable for their family. 

Additionally, many teens do not own a private vehicle, let alone drive! Free transit to teens provides a sense of independence, as they are able to travel to their home, school or anywhere where they need to be, without the fear of unaffordability! Additionally, it will create transit riders for life, eliminating cars off the streets and creating a more eco and sustainable city.

While the TTC will experience a decrease in their revenue stream, it can be made up with increased transit funding from the federal and provincial government's. I probably will get a lot of comments from this post, but I strongly believe the pros outweigh the cons. Affordability should never have to become a barrier in being able to access transit!

Yeah, I firmly disagree. Schools used to offer programs such as free tickets for those who either live too far or who are unable to afford the cost of transit (not sure if there is still that similar program, but something like that is 10x more effective then the free ride the TTC is bleeding money on today).

Im not interested in subsidizing the cost of transit for all kids (especially those who dont need it), let alone expanding the program. The costs outweigh the benefits.

These programs are designed by politicians who have very little knowledge of transit costs, and what they can really do to help with affordability.

[nfitz]

On 3/1/2022 at 8:14 AM, raptorjays said:

I really think TTC should scrap free fare for those 12 and under.. and it looks like the biggest mistake made my John Tory and it’s definitely contributing to revenue shortfall. 

I've never really heard anyone in the real world who wasn't happy at this. Nor have I ever seen much of a problem - almost all kids only go a few stops by themselves.

Given it only contributed $6 million of revenue - I'd think the ticket system would eat most of that money - and the cash collection, etc. And even if they got the entire $6 million as revenue it's peanuts compared to the $1.2 billion of passenger revenue (pre-Covid).

Not to mention the complications and delays when an entire class of students board, each giving their tickets. How would that even work on a streetcar?

It's an excellent policy!

[raptorjays]

8 minutes ago, nfitz said:

I've never really heard anyone in the real world who wasn't happy at this. Nor have I ever seen much of a problem - almost all kids only go a few stops by themselves.

Given it only contributed $6 million of revenue - I'd think the ticket system would eat most of that money - and the cash collection, etc. And even if they got the entire $6 million as revenue it's peanuts compared to the $1.2 billion of passenger revenue (pre-Covid).

Not to mention the complications and delays when an entire class of students board, each giving their tickets. How would that even work on a streetcar?

It's an excellent policy!

It is not.. 

Some high schoolers who look little don't pay their fare at all... and it is ridiculous that there are no such enforcement on that... 

I don't consider it as excellent since it is acting like a loophole for those highschoolers

[T3G]

I don't have an opinion on the under 12 fares but I think the idea of not opening the back doors if no one is getting off is a dated one that has long since outlived its usefulness.

There is no advantage to doing so, the driver can't (and shouldn't) enforce fares anyway, so who cares what door someone gets on through? Forcing everyone to file on through one door is massively inefficient and wastes so much time. Lots of transit agencies in Europe do all door boarding without collapsing in on themselves, why are we special in Toronto?

[nfitz]

57 minutes ago, raptorjays said:

Some high schoolers who look little don't pay their fare at all... and it is ridiculous that there are no such enforcement on that... 

I don't consider it as excellent since it is acting like a loophole for those highschoolers

Any child older than 10 should have a TTC proof-of-age card. If an operator can't tell the difference between a teenager and a 10-year old, then there's other issues.

[ZümmyZüm]

Just like @T3G said there’s no point in enforcing the fare for whoever a driver thinks is under/over 12. If the bus pulls up to a stop and there’s 40 kids waiting from a middle school or even high school they’re going to open all doors and get them on the bus and moving 

there’s a reason why the TTC and other agencies offer free rides to “X age and under” it’s to help the people in that city get around and get around safely. It’s all accounted for in the budget just like fare loss via refusal to pay is accounted for. Don’t forget transit isn’t meant to make profit, it’s meant to move the city. That’s why it’s not private. 
 

im not gonna ask a kid how old they are for a free ride, just like I'm not going to ask a senior for proof of age for their discount, the fare does not cover the cost of transit enough to justify enforcing it 

[smallspy]

12 hours ago, raptorjays said:

It is not.. 

Some high schoolers who look little don't pay their fare at all... and it is ridiculous that there are no such enforcement on that... 

I don't consider it as excellent since it is acting like a loophole for those highschoolers

Do you somehow think that this is a new thing? Kids of that age are always looking for an angle. We did shit like this - and arguably worse - when I was in high school, and the generation before us was no better.

 

Dan

[TTC7447]

On 3/2/2022 at 8:24 PM, raptorjays said:

It is not.. 

Some high schoolers who look little don't pay their fare at all... and it is ridiculous that there are no such enforcement on that... 

I don't consider it as excellent since it is acting like a loophole for those highschoolers

I'm just going to quickly mention here that the last publicly reported time a TTC employee tried to enforce fares with a group of high schoolers, they got stabbed...

And if I remember correctly, a few years ago the TTC instructed their operators not to get involved with fare disputes for their own safety.  Fare disputes are to be left to trained and dedicated Fare Inspection Officers.  Further to some of the points made earlier by others, the TTC (and other public transit agencies) are not in the business of generating profit.  If they were, 12+ ride for free would be long gone, 2 hr transfers would not exist, and the new idea of fare capping introduced to the TTC at a recent board meeting would not have been brought forward.

Edit: March 3, 2022, 8:44pm
A second teen has now been charged in the stabbing of a TTC employee over a fare dispute that took place on February 16, 2022.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/03/03/boy-charged-ttc-driver-stabbed/

Edited March 4, 2022 by TTC7447

[nfitz]

 

Well, this is different - TTC press release:

Quote

News Release - Local Army Reserve conducting scheduled training exercise at Bay Lower Station this weekend 

This weekend, March 5-6, The 48th Highlanders of Canada, one of Torontobs Army Reserve units, will be conducting a previously scheduled training exercise at the TTCbs Bay Lower Station. Members of the public may see small groups of unarmed soldiers in uniform in and around Bay Station. No live ammunition will be used on this exercise.

The TTC regularly partners with public safety organizations to provide a unique venue for different kinds of training exercises.

The exercise will take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. both Saturday and Sunday, and signage will be posted throughout the station.

As Bay Lower Station is not accessible to the public, there will no impact to service at the station. Customers who happen to see members of their local Army Reserve should feel free to say bhellob.

The event is closed to members of the public or media.

I've got visions of dropping a Coke can down the stairs to the lower platform and shouting "fire in the hole!" (not really ...)

[81-717]

11 hours ago, nfitz said:

Quote

News Release - Local Army Reserve conducting scheduled training exercise at Bay Lower Station this weekend 

This weekend, March 5-6, The 48th Highlanders of Canada, one of Torontobs Army Reserve units, will be conducting a previously scheduled training exercise at the TTCbs Bay Lower Station. Members of the public may see small groups of unarmed soldiers in uniform in and around Bay Station. No live ammunition will be used on this exercise.

The TTC regularly partners with public safety organizations to provide a unique venue for different kinds of training exercises.

The exercise will take place between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. both Saturday and Sunday, and signage will be posted throughout the station.

As Bay Lower Station is not accessible to the public, there will no impact to service at the station. Customers who happen to see members of their local Army Reserve should feel free to say bhellob.

The event is closed to members of the public or media.

On a related note... I bet this has something to do with the planned exercise at Lower Bay.

[smallspy]

11 hours ago, 81-717 said:

On a related note... I bet this has something to do with the planned exercise at Lower Bay.

Completely, totally unrelated. Those are British tanks, and they're headed to Alberta for exercises.

Dan

[nfitz]

On 3/2/2022 at 8:24 PM, raptorjays said:

It is not.. 

Some high schoolers who look little don't pay their fare at all... and it is ridiculous that there are no such enforcement on that... 

I don't consider it as excellent since it is acting like a loophole for those highschoolers

How this much different to them throwing 60¢ in the box instead of $2.30?

Students that age are supposed to show their card. If TTC doesn't give enough of a crap to enforce that, why should anyone else worry about it?

[MK78]

Does anyone have an idea what the reasoning the TTC uses behind the run numbering of buses on any given route?

Some routes especially shorter ones will have runs 1,2,3, then something bizarre like 79. or others will have some in the single digits, and others in upper 20's, some in the 50's...

Just curious if there's any rhyme or reason to it or its just whatever they feel like for the given schedule.

[Xtrazsteve]

4 hours ago, MK78 said:

Does anyone have an idea what the reasoning the TTC uses behind the run numbering of buses on any given route?

Some routes especially shorter ones will have runs 1,2,3, then something bizarre like 79. or others will have some in the single digits, and others in upper 20's, some in the 50's...

Just curious if there's any rhyme or reason to it or its just whatever they feel like for the given schedule.

Yes. Usually routes interlined with other routes such as school trips, night routes or simply interlined routes would need a different run number so there won’t be any duplicates when that bus moves to the other route. These numbers could be run high especially for those that does 300 or 320.

 Let’s take the 32 Eglinton West. The regular range is starting from 1. The school trips we have been seeing XE40s show up are from the 52 Lawrence West. They have run numbers 44 and 45. There is also a school trip from the 63 Ossington which has the run number 43 and two school trips from 35 Jane with runs 41 and 42. The 332 night bus range are in the 90s. There is also a 87 run that does a trip on the 300.

 Express and local routes on the same corridor are given different ranges if they were to be monitor by the same supervisor. You can see that the 39 is given the range starting at 1 while the 939 starts at 41 to the 70s. This also allows the 939 to do trips in the 39 without duplicating runs. The 39 also has a special range in the 70s for the 336/339 interlined night bus. Every 36 or 39 doing the 336/339 interlined route has a different run number in the 70s range.

 Most night routes have a special range. Some don’t like the 325 which solely uses buses from the 25. 

[MK78]

Thanks, that makes some sense. Though for example 22 Coxwell, with only 3 buses on a weekday, it will have a normal 1 and 2 run, but the 3rd will have a weird number. I'm not aware of any school trips on 22 Coxwell as there's no high schools on the route.

[Mike]

45 minutes ago, MK78 said:

Thanks, that makes some sense. Though for example 22 Coxwell, with only 3 buses on a weekday, it will have a normal 1 and 2 run, but the 3rd will have a weird number. I'm not aware of any school trips on 22 Coxwell as there's no high schools on the route.

That run likely comes from or goes to route 322.

[Articulated]

1 hour ago, MK78 said:

Thanks, that makes some sense. Though for example 22 Coxwell, with only 3 buses on a weekday, it will have a normal 1 and 2 run, but the 3rd will have a weird number. I'm not aware of any school trips on 22 Coxwell as there's no high schools on the route.

The three main weekday runs on 22 Coxwell are currently 1, 80, and 72. 80 run interlines to the 300B, while 72 run interlines to the 322/324.

@Xtrazsteve already gave a good explanation of some circumstances for using higher route numbers. To add onto his explanation, the reasons for this practice is twofold: 1) buses interlining from another route need a different run number to ensure there is no duplication of runs (i.e. two buses on a Blue Night both displaying "1 run" because they came from different daytime routes), and 2) different or "higher" run numbers indicate to line supervisors that this bus will do something "different" and need to be managed appropriately. 

Going back to your example of 22 Coxwell - if you look at the Next Bus data more closely, you'll see the runs are labeled as "22_1_10", "22_80_20", and "22_72_30" - the last two digits have the three runs numbered consecutively as 1, 2, and 3 (with the 0 indicating an all-day run), but the middle digits are the "public" or "visible" run numbers which are referenced by drivers and supervisors.

A fourth bus, "20_53_40" joins the route in late evening; this bus comes from 20 Cliffside and is added when service is extended via Kingston Rd on the 22A branch. It gets 53 run to differentiate from the other buses on the 20, as well as the other buses on the 22. FYI, in previous schedules this bus used to come from 31 Greenwood (as that route's 2 run), and in this circumstance it would have conflicted with the existing 2 run on Coxwell, which is why it needs a different run number.

[MK78]

Ah cool, so it makes sense from night buses as well as other routes.

Thanks for the explanations!

[raptorjays]

On 3/5/2022 at 6:29 PM, nfitz said:

How this much different to them throwing 60¢ in the box instead of $2.30?

Students that age are supposed to show their card. If TTC doesn't give enough of a crap to enforce that, why should anyone else worry about it?

Anyway, I’ve been capturing those who are evading fares along my commute and will be sending it to local news outlets as well as TTC customer service (It’s better than doing nothing about it) 

I’ve seen various forms of fare evasion from not paying fare to using a children presto card to evade.. and the problem got worse since the presto was introduced to the TTC.

When I was a high schooler, I had to present my TTC photo id and pay fares and almost every drivers asked me for that.. and seems like the loophole is getting larger

stricter guideline about the evasion is definitely needed.. 

[T3G]

18 hours ago, raptorjays said:

Anyway, I’ve been capturing those who are evading fares along my commute and will be sending it to local news outlets as well as TTC customer service (It’s better than doing nothing about it) 

And who asked you to do this? Don't come crying to us if you get assaulted by someone who doesn't think much of you videotaping them not paying their fare.

[John Oke]

https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/03/toronto-ttc-transfer-56-years-ago/
 

Even though I don’t really trust BlogTO for accurate reporting, this is… interesting 

[raptorjays]

Btw, when is the next opportunity for schedule changes? 

I do see a lot more people using the TTC now.. 

https://www.cp24.com/news/transit-operators-reporting-boost-in-ridership-as-gas-prices-surge-1.5810523

And this news article says there's a boost in ridership as gas price surge.. 

with more people going back to the office and students commuting to school.. + people ditching their vehicles due to insane gas price right now.. 

I feel like there really need to be more service ESPECIALLY on BD line now since it is getting now getting insane during morning commute. 

It not only becomes standing-room only at Kipling/Islington.. It does get jam packed which people can't really distance..

and the headway is still 4-5 minute even during the rush-hours.

Even YUS line is getting more crowded although that line didn't get any reduction during the pandemic.. 

 

I hope it will be sooner rather than later

[T3G]

I'm wondering if anyone would be able to weigh in on the serial numbers of the H5/H6 cars. Here is the serial number of H6 no. 5810: 84-75-1442

It is my understanding that the first two numbers denote the year of manufacture, the next two the car length, and the last four the actual factory serial number. However, all of the H5s had '76' in the first two digits except for cars 5804-5807, which were '77'. The cars, however, were not delivered until early 1979. Meanwhile, all of the H6s had '84' despite 5810-11 not even being outshopped from the Thunder Bay factory until 1986, and the last ones not being finished until 1989. Does anyone happen to know why the numbers were set up like this? This is probably a stupid assumption, but did they denote when the frames were first cut instead of when the cars were finished?