News   Jun 28, 2024
 3.8K     5 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 1.9K     2 
News   Jun 28, 2024
 653     1 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Other than other busy stations like Eglinton or Union, what's the point of these markings? At a quieter or mid use stations it is hardly a problem to shuffle a few feet over to the nearest door. Seems like a waste of material and manpower.
If your criteria is just busy stations then there's plenty that could use them that haven't had them installed. Having them in more places also means riders will be more familiar with them, I know they look really obvious in their purpose but some people won't clue in right away. Finally, and I'll admit this is a bit of a reach, but if you can make all stations more efficient it could reduce dwell times in the aggregate and speed up the whole line.

One critique I have of those markings is the use of the ISA, I think what they're going for is that you should stand on the sides to keep the way clear for those needing additional space for accessibility, but I had to look at it and think for about 15 seconds before I got there. My initial reading was that those with accessibility needs should stay to the sides but I immediately recognized that makes little sense. I think you can overuse a symbol in public and dilute its meaning, reducing its value for communication.
 
If your criteria is just busy stations then there's plenty that could use them that haven't had them installed. Having them in more places also means riders will be more familiar with them, I know they look really obvious in their purpose but some people won't clue in right away. Finally, and I'll admit this is a bit of a reach, but if you can make all stations more efficient it could reduce dwell times in the aggregate and speed up the whole line.

One critique I have of those markings is the use of the ISA, I think what they're going for is that you should stand on the sides to keep the way clear for those needing additional space for accessibility, but I had to look at it and think for about 15 seconds before I got there. My initial reading was that those with accessibility needs should stay to the sides but I immediately recognized that makes little sense. I think you can overuse a symbol in public and dilute its meaning, reducing its value for communication.
I do not disagree but maybe the TTC are being sensible (well, it's possible) and trying this at one or two stations before rolling out all over. Too often the City rushes into things headlong (because they are late) and then realises that their plan is in need of modification.
 
Last edited:
If your criteria is just busy stations then there's plenty that could use them that haven't had them installed. Having them in more places also means riders will be more familiar with them, I know they look really obvious in their purpose but some people won't clue in right away. Finally, and I'll admit this is a bit of a reach, but if you can make all stations more efficient it could reduce dwell times in the aggregate and speed up the whole line.

One critique I have of those markings is the use of the ISA, I think what they're going for is that you should stand on the sides to keep the way clear for those needing additional space for accessibility, but I had to look at it and think for about 15 seconds before I got there. My initial reading was that those with accessibility needs should stay to the sides but I immediately recognized that makes little sense. I think you can overuse a symbol in public and dilute its meaning, reducing its value for communication.
Everyone wait on the sides. The blue markings are likely for doors next to the accessible spaces on the train. You can see the other black markings further down the platform in the photo.
 
I do not disagree but maybe the TTC are being sensible (well, it's possible) and trying this at one or two stations before rolling out all over. Too often the City rushes into things headlong (because they are late) and then realises that their plan is in need of modification.
Oh absolutely, it makes sense to try it first and then refine before wider deployment, but these were announced in 2019. I think it's fair to wonder whether they've just forgotten about this project.

Everyone wait on the sides. The blue markings are likely for doors next to the accessible spaces on the train. You can see the other black markings further down the platform in the photo.
Ah, I hadn't noticed that, thanks for pointing it out.
 
So it feels like this strike is actually going to happen.
It was a rather incendiary press conference from the ATU this morning. I know last second deals can happen, but the rhetoric is quite intense for that scenario to be in play.

One interesting note will be how many people have no clue about it. I've talked to several people at my office today who rely on the TTC that were not aware of this possibility at all until I told them.
Honestly I wonder is the whole miway busses not allowed to pickup people in Toronto a legitimate complaint or a bargaining chip
 
This is a situation where Ford should step in BEFORE the strike takes place to ensure the system keeps running. Transit, especially in Toronto, is an essential service that people's livelihoods, education, health, and social needs depend upon and the transit workers should not be allowed to point a gun at the collective heads of the populace.

Transit workers are essential and they should be remunerated accordingly and have their genuine workplace concerns taken seriously. They have to be able to pressure gov't into trying to reach a fair and equitable solution but that can be done without a full scale strike. Refusing overtime, not replacing sick workers, no split shifts {ie no extra rush hour service} or just providing the service on a Sunday schedule. This would put a lot of political pressure on both sides to reach an agreement but would still keep the bones of the system running.

A City and her residents cannot function without basic transit service so a full scale system wide strike should be illegal. Too many people's lives depend upon it.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: JBR
I'm not sure what game they're playing at, because they don't have to say anything, but David Rider's sources at the province say Ford doesn't intend to act quickly.


While Labour Minister David Piccini told reporters Thursday his department has mediators on standby to help the city and the union reach a deal because “we understand the importance of the TTC to Torontonians,” Ford is not planning to step in right away, a senior government source said privately in order to discuss internal deliberations.

It could take weeks to meet the legal threshold of damage to the economy and the community before back-to-work legislation could be contemplated, as is the case in teacher strikes where officials must wait until the school year is considered in jeopardy, the source added.

That’s because of a court decision last year that struck down a previous Liberal government’s law, passed at the urging of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, declaring the TTC an essential service.

That's not what the court decision actually says, but not everybody is a labour lawyer, I guess.

If I was a "senior government source" I'd probably only say this to the Star if the goal was to put pressure on Chow to loudly and publicly say she wants help from the province to order them back quickly. Or put pressure on the city to pony up bigger offers to avoid a long strike, but I can't imagine that's the end game for Doug Ford.
 
Honestly I wonder is the whole miway busses not allowed to pickup people in Toronto a legitimate complaint or a bargaining chip
CP24 was interviewing the ATU President, and he said one of the sticking points was routes being contracted out.

What does he mean by that? How do you contract out a bus route?

Other buses from bordering cities picking up passengers?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what game they're playing at, because they don't have to say anything, but David Rider's sources at the province say Ford doesn't intend to act quickly.




That's not what the court decision actually says, but not everybody is a labour lawyer, I guess.

If I was a "senior government source" I'd probably only say this to the Star if the goal was to put pressure on Chow to loudly and publicly say she wants help from the province to order them back quickly. Or put pressure on the city to pony up bigger offers to avoid a long strike, but I can't imagine that's the end game for Doug Ford.
Actually on the contrary. That was exactly what the court decision said. You can read it yourself:

Basically like how nurses and fire departments cant strike, there has to be serious danger to the safety of people. Note how the government tried to bring up "increased emissions". Thats why, you have to show a danger to society.

Reading it back, Theres no way this lasts shorter than 2-3 weeks. though


146] I find on the evidence that the Government failed to establish that the TTC is an essential service as that term has been defined in the caselaw.

[147] In SFL, the Supreme Court held that maintaining essential services can be a “pressing and substantial” objective, but only if the service is truly essential in the sense that its interruption “would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”: at paras. 84, 86, and 92. An interruption in services that results in “mere inconvenience” would not be sufficient to meet the definition of essential services.

[148] The Government refers to the fact that the 2008 strike was on very short notice, which left passengers unexpectedly stranded, creating an obvious safety concern for minors, women travelling alone, people with disabilities and those unable to afford alternatives. The evidence put forward by the Government in support of this position is the legislative debates on February 24, 2011. There are no police or hospital records filed in evidence that supports the submission that the short notice of the 2008 strike resulted in actual harm to the public.

[149] There is also no evidence that a TTC strike affects the ability of fire, police, and EMS services from effectively responding to emergencies. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The September 22, 2008, City Staff Report, titled “Declaring the TTC an Essential Service in Toronto”, stated that each service reported that there was no noticeable effect on their response times due to a disruption of transit services during a TTC strike.

[150] The Government argues that a transit strike results in negative health effects because of an increase in air pollution. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that this is the case. The Government’s traffic expert, Dr. Miller, provided the opinion that a transit strike would result in greater traffic congestion and an increase in air pollution. However, he conceded in crossexamination that he assumed no change in behaviour in the event of a transit strike or lock-out. He agreed that trip suppression in the event of a strike could make a “significant difference” in terms of the number of additional cars on the road projected by his model.

[155] The economic concerns must be more than mere inconvenience. To support the pressing and substantial objective test, the economic harm must be “serious” and “especially injurious to the economic interests of third parties”: RWDSU, at para. 31. As noted by Koehnen J. in OECTA, economic concerns will only be pressing and substantial if they involve “financial emergency and urgency”: at paras. 262-271.

[159] I find the evidence put forward by the Government to support its position that there are serious economic consequences of a TTC strike to be lacking. There is no current report that sets out a detailed analysis of the economic consequences of a strike. It relies on two reports prepared in 2008; one by the City of Toronto, and one on behalf of the union. The reports were prepared 15 years ago and provide only broad estimates of the economic consequences of a TTC strike, without any detailed analysis.
 
This is a situation where Ford should step in BEFORE the strike takes place to ensure the system keeps running. Transit, especially in Toronto, is an essential service that people's livelihoods, education, health, and social needs depend upon and the transit workers should not be allowed to point a gun at the collective heads of the populace.

Transit workers are essential and they should be remunerated accordingly and have their genuine workplace concerns taken seriously. They have to be able to pressure gov't into trying to reach a fair and equitable solution but that can be done without a full scale strike. Refusing overtime, not replacing sick workers, no split shifts {ie no extra rush hour service} or just providing the service on a Sunday schedule. This would put a lot of political pressure on both sides to reach an agreement but would still keep the bones of the system running.

A City and her residents cannot function without basic transit service so a full scale system wide strike should be illegal. Too many people's lives depend upon it.
I don't think refusing overtime, no shift coverage, or a Sunday schedule is nearly outrageous enough to ensure that the workers have their concerns taken seriously. Remember that those in charge are utter bastards. A strike is a very drastic form of action, a much more powerful bargaining chip than reduced service. A strike means that the entire city is going to be breathing down their necks and pressuring them to solve the problem. The only real alternative option is to cause immense disruption to the city politicians and TTC management, but I doubt many of them use transit so I don't know how they'd go about it.

If it means that the city will be inconvenienced, well, it sucks, but one rarely makes progress without causing disruption in the process. Workers need to look out for their own interests first and foremost, because if they don't, you can rest assured no one else will, either.

What I think should be illegal is the ability to legislate striking workers back to work. What good is the right to strike if your strike can be called off by a third party if it's deemed inconvenient? That's a farce.
 
Last edited:
CP24 was interviewing the ATU President, and he said one of the sticking points was routes being contracted out.

What does he mean by that? How do you contract out a bus route?

Other buses from bordering cities picking up passengers?
That is one of the ways - imagine YRT or MiWay taking over TTC routes.

Curiously, when OPTO was implemented on Yonge, they were able to do it because all the redundant employees were assigned to elsewhere in the workforce. I wonder why this would not be a possibility now, especially considering how utterly pathetic the frequencies on the suburban routes are. There can't be many operators who would be made redundant, surely less than there were Line 1 guards.

The other way is to go down the YRT route and fully assign bus operations to a private contractor. I doubt this is what TTC management was planning on doing though.
 
That is one of the ways - imagine YRT or MiWay taking over TTC routes.

Curiously, when OPTO was implemented on Yonge, they were able to do it because all the redundant employees were assigned to elsewhere in the workforce. I wonder why this would not be a possibility now, especially considering how utterly pathetic the frequencies on the suburban routes are. There can't be many operators who would be made redundant, surely less than there were Line 1 guards.

The other way is to go down the YRT route and fully assign bus operations to a private contractor. I doubt this is what TTC management was planning on doing though.
Preventing other agencies from serving Toronto is still dumb considering municipal boarders are crossed all the time. The status quo no longer makes sense. Especially with the one fare transfer, municipalities and the province need to work together to coordinate cross border services.
 
Preventing other agencies from serving Toronto is still dumb considering municipal boarders are crossed all the time. The status quo no longer makes sense. Especially with the one fare transfer, municipalities and the province need to work together to coordinate cross border services.
I agree, but I wouldn't want to risk getting laid off because of it. There needs to be an actual solution to the problem.
 
The TTC has automated on buses now saying service will stop dead at 3 am if there is a strike.

At least they are informing people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1

Back
Top