Jonny5
Senior Member
Yup
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
It's not, though.
The TTC is given funding as a lump sum to operate as much service as it is capable of doing. With extremely few exceptions (and I'm not sure how many of those are even valid anymore), they are not told that "route X must have 5 buses, route Y must have 10 buses, etc". They have to figure it out. And it has to take into account all sorts of things that are tangential to the actual operation of service capable of picking up and dropping off passengers, such as maintenance, fueling, deadheading, supervision, etc.
And as Steve correctly points out, there are a bunch of additional factors that are coming into play that are negatively affecting the amount of service that is actually making it onto the streets. His analysis is, as usual, completely on point.
That metric is a handy one, but it also shouldn't be the only one that they use, I'll agree about that. As riders, it doesn't mean anything to us. But when it comes to comparing service to funding, it is a very important one to use.
Dan
T3G
Senior Member
At least he took off his shoes...
Richard White
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
PL1
Active Member
That's a better way of describing it. It is a nearly useless metric for riders. And it suggests the level of service is almost as good as it was, and it largely isn't.
DSC
Superstar
NO doubt it has but the 75 bus is still almost always crowded and the 121 is almost always not. My comment was wondering why the TTC increased service on the 121 and decreased it on the 75.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't think there's much relationship with 121 and 75 ridership. And that 75 ridership has been reduced because 65 has picked some up.
I think 121 has increased coincidentally - perhaps ridership east-west has increased with King being so useless. Personally I've been using 121 from Gerrard/Broadview with no direct 504 service. Or perhaps they are still trying to find 121's feet, and seeing what a boost in service will do for it. I don't ride 121 enough in peak to have any useful anecdotal observations.
Jonny5
Senior Member
Oh this is one I have some thoughts on as a regular rider from the 2013-2018 period, and then stopping using it only to now recently using it again post-change of route, and I agree completely.
A definite shift has occurred, specifically south of Dundas. I remember distinctly that the 65 was often crowded at times southbound from Castle Frank, and not only for people using it as an alternative for a late Wellesley bus, but it was crowded with riders south to about Dundas, and then past Shuter/Queen it would empty out. Now it's sometimes standing room only southbound at Queen in some periods, which never happened before.
My conclusion is also that it isn't simply net new riders from development, though there's a few from that, but that the route extension has actually altered travel patterns of many existing TTC riders in the east side of downtown to move them here from multiple other routes.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
You are just bashing the TTC and this fact with no historical background. The table doesn't mention it is a comparison between two different routes, the 121 Fort York-Esplanade vs. the current 121 Esplanade-River. The former route just gets stuck at Union Station and by 2020 it reach a badly decayed point. They kept adding round trip time and widening the headways as there is no more resources for the route. By chopping the route and redoing it, they can run a better service originally intended for the route back in 2016. In fact the 121 lost a bus in both AM and PM peak (running with 80% resources vs 2020 in rush hour) hence it could be afforded.
If you compared the 121 Fort York-Esplanade when introduced in June 2016, you will see that the current 121 runs LESS frequent in ALL TIME PEROIDS. In October 2016, rush hour on the 121 was running as frequent as 10 minutes oppose to 15 minutes today.
DSC
Superstar
I was really not comparing pre and post covid but commenting on the observation that at most times of the day the 121 bus (either the old route or the newer one) is comparatively empty and the 75 bus is fairly crowded but, during some periods, the frequency of the 121 has been increased while the 75 has been decreased. Of course, the extension of the 65 route to Queens Quay has had an effect on the ridership of the 75 but the 75 is still very crowded at certain times of the day.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Presumably if the SRT bus replacement is juicing bus hours, the absence of the rail service is depressing rapid transit hours?
Steve X
Senior Member
I'm not exactly sure the 65 is experiencing heavy loading cause TTC didn't scheduled enough buses or because of congestion. Both the 65 and 75 get stuck in traffic towards the south end which leads to very uneven headways which is why one would often see heavy loading. The 121 does not suffer from such problems but is a lightly used route. I do believe they should extend it north to Broadview Station to provide a direct connection for River St residences to connect to Line 2. Then again, those residence might just want to go downtown via the current streetcar routes. Who am I to say how they should travel.
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
So it has finally happened, an E-Bike has caught fire on board a subway train:
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/sh...crews-respond-to-e-bike-fire-police-1.6706424
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/sh...crews-respond-to-e-bike-fire-police-1.6706424
Richard White
Senior Member
Nothing will change.
They need to be banned from public transit or at least controlled like lithium batteries on airplanes.