Talk:Toronto Transit Commission/Archive 1

Archive 1

Special Constables section

I removed the words in brackets at the end of the paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to know how to spot plain-clothed TTC security vehicles. You should be able to feel secure whenever you ride the transit system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.170.70 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2005 (UTC)

Short Bus section

I removed the section under Transit Modes on the "Short Bus" service. It's clearly a joke referring to the smaller school buses that are commonly used to transport special needs students to and from public school. There are of course no references to any such service on the TTC website. UMwoodr0 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

After discovering more vandalism in the other edits by 142.20.208.97, I reverted the article to the 01:42, 29 November 2005 version by 64.231.250.23. UMwoodr0 23:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

System Map

I think a system map is much needed for this article. Moreover, future expansion plans in the talks should also be included. --70.28.20.10 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A system map for the TTC would be rather large, as the system is quite extensive. The Ride Guide should be listed in the External Links (I'll add it right away).

See Toronto subway and RT and Toronto streetcar system for maps of their respective systems. You won't find maps of any regular city bus system elsewhere on Wikipedia, for good reason - they change too easily and are of limited notability. Radagast 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Ride guide is kind of ok although I wanted the streets to be dakened. Otherwise, in this article make sure you go to the TTC website for any changes of the guide. Keenrich 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a user-created system map showing only major routes (i.e. excluding "limited service" routes) and/or express routes would be a good idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.110 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Current Bus Routes

Does this add anything to the article? It's time-sensitive *and*, as far as I can see, completely useless. Wikipedia is not a transit map? 204.50.64.129 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The lists of bus and streetcar routes exist in branch articles. I have replaced the list here with links to those articles. This article cannot contain every possible bit of information about the TTC. It is already very long. This article should provide an overview of the TTC. Detailed information belongs in branch articles. Ground Zero | t 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge TTC Special Constable Services

I propose to merge the TTC Special Constable Services article into the TTC article 14 days from today. Basis: the stub lacks sources and does not seem to meet notability requirements for its own article. Alan.ca 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Object numerous articles exist on Transit police for other cities. You're right that this desparately needs sources (and content), but I don't believe that justifies doing away with a separate article.Bobanny 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support TTC cops are such a minor part of the system that they only merit a small paragraph in the main article. Atrian 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Object - per Bobanny's reasoning. I might even consider proposing the reverse, and have the information here merged into the separate article, along with those ever elusive references. - The Lake Effect 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Object - TTC article already too long, and per Bobanny and TLE. Ground Zero | t 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Subway Stations with this Article

I propose that article be merged with the SUBWAY/RT article, not the main TTC article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.64.118 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

So you mean, here? Toronto subway and RT - The Lake Effect 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Toronto subway and RT is already too long -- "This page is 51 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Merging another article int this one is a baaaaad idea. Ground Zero | t 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As well, many metro/rapid transit system articles are separate from their operating organizations' articles - this goes even deeper for the TTC, as the subway/RT is articled separate from the streetcar network, while the least-detailed bus information can survive here. I'm for the status quo on this. Radagast 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Transit City

The City of Toronto has released their plan for light rail systems through out Toronto. Check transitcity.ca for more details! And don't forget the diagram and reports too for posting. Thanks.Salmans801—Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Budget Crisis

I am not trying to discuss about the TTC. I am merely pointing out that this section is outdated and that it can be improved by updating the information.

For the record, the city has decided to implement the vehicle registration tax and the Land transfer tax.

Someone who trusts themselves to correct any wikipedia articles, Please improve the article by updating this information. I will not do it myself, for I do not know enough about adding/changing information.

--Louiechefei28848888 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

TTC Personnel

Anyone opposed to this move? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

{{TTC}}

I am making a template for the Toronto Transit Commission to link the general articles, similar to the one for {{GTA Mass Transit}}. Feedback is welcome. --AEMoreira042281 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I added links to each subway and RT rolling stock model on the template, what do you think? Blackjays1 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not bad...the basis of the template was one done for the {{MTA (New York)}} and {{New Jersey Transit}} in the USA, two larger transit agencies in the northeastern United States. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TTC: Take The Car

I have removed an edit that included the backronym for the TTC: Take The Car. If anyone wants to find a reason why to include it, please look at the race section of the MARTA article, which includes a similar backronym for Atlanta's rapid transit system. In fact, that article is being edited such that it may qualify to be a featured article. However, it would need a very good reason for the inclusion of the Take The Car backronym in the Toronto Transit Commission article; that section of the MARTA article has this backronym: Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta. Johnny Au (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed another edit of the same, since there is no consensus to keep it yet. Johnny Au (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there should be a reputable source that includes this backronym if it were to be included in the article, like the MARTA article. Johnny Au (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"fourth most heavily-used urban mass transit system"

Someone keeps changing the article, claiming that the TTC is the foruth largest, by including the Chicago Transit Authority (with no source). It's actually the third largest, and there's a source for that. Blackjays1 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Added note beside the word "third" regarding this. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone at Loyola University has reverted it back to 4th, now claiming that that the relevant comparison is with the Illinois RTA, which is rubbish, the RTA's counterpart is the GTTA/Metrolinx. The respective articles still give daily ridership figures of 1.6m for the CTA vs 2.4m for the TTC, which makes the TTC unambiguously the 3rd largest.--99.226.59.85 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I do not want to spark an edit war. Additionally, that person also changed my note. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That user is certainly wrong. The apt comparisons are:

• Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)
• GO Transit and Metra, though the latter does not operate a bus system
• Metrolinx (previously GTTA) and Regional Transportation Authority (Illinois) (or RTA)
• Chicago's Pace (transit) seems to be equivalent to a combination of GO Transit's bus system, VIVA and other bus services in regions in the GTA

There isn't any evidence from this user that RTA and TTC are equivalent. I'm reverting the changes. Mindmatrix 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CTA #s "The CTA today announced that 2008 combined bus and rail ridership increased by 26.8 million rides, a gain of 5.4 percent over 2007 ridership, for a total of 526.4 million rides." http://www.transitchicago.com/news/default.aspx?Month=&Year=&Category=2&ArticleId=2274

Look at different sizes of the track systems, I suspect Toronto's requires a lot more transfers whereas the majority of Chicagoans typically take a bus or train directly to their destination. As in Toronto there are other modes of transportation that serve both the city and suburbs such as Metra(people use it quite a bit just for traveling within the city), Pace, etc.. http://subway.umka.org/maps/chicago.gif http://subway.umka.org/map-toronto/sheppard/don-mills.html

Also, this is probably not the place for it, but there is a lot of talk of making Chicago a high speed rail hub, is there any such buzz in Toronto? I would love to see a high speed train connecting Chicago to Toronto via detroit...As well as eventually to Montreal and Quebec. This preceding comment was written by 71.239.125.249 on 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

TTC annual ridership stats added

I just make this new article... check it out, maybe someone can help out. Thanks. Annual TTC ridership per year (LAz17 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

Sorry, but such statistics without context is not the sort of thing that should go on Wikipedia. If you can find a way to build useful prose on that, without original research, feel free; but please stay within the proper guidelines. Radagast (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many sections in "Operations and other information"

The "Operations and other information" section has too many sections. It should be shortened; the same information can be kept, but the section could do with some better organization so that each section contains more information than just single-line sentences about too-specific aspects of the TTC. Gary King (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that it can be integrated better with fewer but longer sections. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we cut out some of the short seemingly irrelevant stuff (TTC Auctions - 1 line about the fact they sell lost articles on ebay?!? who cares?) and perhaps merge some of the info in this section into two or three new sections? Suggestions would be an actual operations section, and then a section on Support Systems (Garages, Facilities Etc) and then something along the lines of customer amenities/customer services: something that would include the trivial list of washroom stations, parking lots, safety info etc.Eja2k (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if it is not relevant to the article, then it can be cut. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Operations and other information" Section is no more! I have conducted a major cleanup and rework (feel free to tweak and change as necessary as Wikipedia is always a work in progress). Operations has been Split into 3 new Categories with most of the old subsections remaining albeit re-arranged. The new Sections are: Riding the TTC - Which includes such sections as Fares, Schedules, Accessibility etc., Transit Infrastructure Which includes sections like Support Infrastructure, Shelters etc. and Safety and Communications With the Safety, Communications and One-Stop Sections. I did not add any additional info to the sections, simply re-arranged them into what i think is a more logical. Feedback would be appreciated. Eja2k (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by this?

"As a result, the TTC became the largest transit operator in Anglo-America not to receive provincial/state funding"

Is this referring to North America? (+/- Mexico?) Is this a way of making it the "largest"... except for Montreal? Is Quebec included in "Anglo-America"? This very odd term is not even well defined on its own wikipedia page! I suggest changing the wording so it makes sense.

In this case, Anglo-America refers strictly to English Canada and the United States. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Suicides in the incidents section

Shall we set out some ground rules? Suicides happen on the TTC at rate of approximately one per month. They are generaly something that is not covered by mainstream media for fear of "copy-cats" etc and are generaly not even news worthy. From time to time someone newsworthy does commit suicide and it is covered by the media, however listing them in the incidents section - the teacher, the business man I don't think is really all that nessisary. If we open the doors to those two there are probably a dozen more noteworthy suicides since the subway opened but they are not really relivant to the article. Subway service is only affected for an average of 90 minutes and if the it was a highprofile enough event then the details should be listed in that person's biography not here.

I propose that we remove, and comment tag the incidents section not to include suicides in future. Unless it is VERY important (ie If the mayor, chief of police, (VERY high profile public figure) personthen it might be considered)). For the average to slightly above average notoriety people I do not think it is wise/relevant to place them here.

eja2k 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should remove suicides of those who themselves are not notable enough for their own articles, since they will add up considerably. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be of interest however I am reluctant to make it its own section but just today the TTC released statistics due to a year old request relating to the Freedom of information act regarding suicides over the past 10 years. The media release that goes on to explain what the TTC does to prevent such incidents, and the rational for not releasing information can be found at http://www3.ttc.ca/News/2009/November/26_11_09_suicide_statistics_.jsp

eja2k 05:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disregard my last... I see its been added prior to me posting my response ... fair enough as long as it doesnt become sensationalized the data is in the public light now so it might as well be included

eja2k 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We need a hatnote on this article to handle the other meanings of TTC

Until recently, TTC was a disambiguation page, which listed over a dozen things that 'TTC' could be an abbreviation for. Lately, an editor changed that page into a redirect to Toronto Transit Commission. (The old version of TTC is here). While this may be justifiable, since Toronto Transit Commission may be the most heavily used meaning of TTC, it implies that a hatnote on the article is now required, to assist people who are expecting one of the other meanings. See WP:DAB for how this is generally done. I propose that the 'redirect' template should be used to put the following at the top of the article:

"TTC" redirects here. For other uses, see TTC (disambiguation).

Let me know if anyone objects. If you don't want a hatnote, then the redirection of TTC should be undone. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Claim

The back and forth in the above section entitled "fourth most heavily-used urban mass transit system" is entertaining. Now that it's two years later I'd like to take a second look at this. The article on the CTA says that its daily ridership is 1.7 million. This article claims 1.5 million for the TTC. Something is wrong. I tend to believe the numbers provided by the agencies more than an unsourced, dubious boast by a Canadian TV network in 2005. I will change the number from third to fourth in a few days unless new sourced facts come to light and in the absence of serious objections. --Antigrandiose (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

- The difference is between "ridership" and "passengers". If you had looked at the next two sentences, you would have noticed that the Toronto Transit Commission carries 2.45 million trips, while 1.5 million people/passengers use it daily. You are looking at the CTA's ridership (trips) against the TTC's passengers which are obviously not comparable. If you look at the APTA source, this is also confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.224.4 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed tag per the IP comment. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Old TTC Subway ticket

File:TTC ticket.jpg

TTC ticket unknown time

Hi everyone, I found this in a book my friend gave me (he grew up in Toronto). It is an old subway ticket. Don't know the year. Is someone willing to confirm it, the year and add it to the article?

I can't get the ticket to show up, I've given up trying to show it. If this is something you guys would like to add let me know how to add the file, please. Normgibson (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the link to the image. It's an old transfer (it allows the bearer to transfer to surface vehicles from the subway without further payment) issued at King station. If I remember correctly, its from one of the machines that was replaced by the current machines. The TTC used to have two types of transfer issuing machines, this being one of the older types with King being one of the original subway stations. I'm looking for a ref. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I edit the copyright information to ensure this is kept.. as I scanned it, I am the source.. it is something that should be public domain as it was captured from a public institution?

Normgibson (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Individual pages for bus routes

This may sound crazy, but I'm thinking about starting articles for each bus route which may include a short description of its route, its branches, as well as outline the routes it connects to and its schedule at each major stop (from the TTC website). Any ideas? EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that would lead to each page becoming a mere travel guide that is already easily accessible from the TTC's website and most of these bus routes would fail the Pokémon test (this test is equally applicable to bus routes as fictional species). Let me ask you this question: what is the significance of the 55 Warren Park bus route? The answer is that the description of the 55 Warren Park bus route belongs in the Lambton, Toronto article and not its own article. Individual streetcar routes, however, are more important and significant. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was thinking about adding the history of each route as well (how it came up, reasons for development, etc.), which I understand would be nearly impossible to search up and find. But I see what you mean. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet

Does anyone know who created this section and where the data came from? There are no references cited. Useddenim (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the article Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet (its an article not a section), I believe the data was cut out of the main buses article during a clean up, It was un-sourced there, and now someone seems to have created a new article with the same (relatively useless) un-sourced information. eja2k 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s the one. Some of it seems to have been taken from www.angelfire.com/ca/TORONTO/torontoroad.html (and continuation pages). Personally, I think that all fleet listings would be more useful if there was a template with a standardized format. Useddenim (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Google maps does not support the TTC"

If I'm not mistaken, the issue with Google Transit not working in conjunction with the TTC is actually the TTC's fault, not Google's. The TTC hasn't provided Google with the appropriate data files containing stop locations (GPS), routes, etc. More info can be found at the Google Transit Feed Specification site http://code.google.com/transit/spec/transit_feed_specification.html

So what I'm saying is: this should probably be changed. 142.46.160.157 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is neither TTC's nor Google's fault. The main issue is the size of the transit system, which is considerably larger than York Region's and the TTC stated that they will release their data to Google sometime in March. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

However, they still did not. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They now do, but not by much. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidents section

This section seems to be getting too long.

Incidents like this: "On 4 and 5 February 2009, two separate armed holdups occurred at Subway Stations on the Spadina Line. Both occurred shortly before the end of subway service in the early hours of the morning. The first robbery occurred at Lawrence West Station where the thieves made off with an undisclosed amount of cash. The following night an attempt was made at Yorkdale Station however the would be robbers did not get any money. Since the incidents the TTC has stepped up its visual presence of Supervisory Staff on the system in the evening.[33]"

...are hardly unique and probably have happened dozens of times since the subway opened. It seems to be more appropriate a section for truly unique occurrences, like the deadly collision A.Roz (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that seven of the incidents listed occurred after the start of this decade, while four occurred before that. In other words, this section suffered from WP:RECENTISM. To balance that, add more incidents that occurred before 2000. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes that holdup thing unique is that they changed staffing habits and policy after these incidents. New Policy that includes whenever a holdup alarm activated, trains will bypass the station until TSC's or TPS book out and determine it to be clear ... there was a very high visual presence of staff on the system for weeks after, and other staffing changes that the TTC probably does not want posted here. --Eja2k (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be appropriate for the section. There isn't a concrete section on these kinds of policies, is there? It's getting too minute for a general encyclopedic article. Surely one can dig up all sorts of similar holdups or criminal acts over 80 years and have pages of policy changing incidents. If they're really that important, perhaps a separate page might be in order. A.Roz (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be doing it again. An update was placed about the bus fire incident. No one died, and noone will care 2 months from now ... I suggest we remove it and perhaps try and establish some ideas of guidelines for what the major editors of this article feel are worthy enough 'incidents' for that section. Obviously loss of life incidents (other than suicides) and workplace safety incidents that have large scale ramifications on how the organization works are important. And incidents that have had a major impact on operations ... ie major snowstorm of 1998 (when mel called in the army) (which is currently not listed as an incident), Old mill station fire which closed part of the line for over 24 hours and the station for a week... etc. Eja2k (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, IP editors kept adding minor incidents, which I kept having to copy-edit, and ultimately, major editors would remove them. We should leave a note on the incidents section to remind them. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The derailment on the 505? ... I say that it will be irrelevant by next week, I already removed a newly formed incidents section from the 505 Dundas article, are we in agreement to remove the incident from this article's section?eja2k 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Derailments happen all the time. Seventeen people becoming injured (and no one dying) is hardly justifiable for inclusion, especially if this incident does not lead to changes in policy. Therefore, it is best to remove this incident. After all, Wikipedia is not a news source. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

List of bus routes redesign proposal

Please see the discussion here and share your thoughts. Thanks! EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

IP Vandalism of Dec 2011

In light of the recent spate of IP Vandalism should we get this article semi-protected for a while? eja2k 16:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I have submitted the article to WP:RPP. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever this ip is seems to have rather interesting views on the topic and is not maintaining a neutral point of view (obviously). I am also concerned that the editor made personal attacks in the edit summary stating "(Undid revision 463953246 by Eja2k (talk) I see your "vandalism", and raise you one "inside cover up".)" , "(Undid revision 460900905 by Eja2k (talk) Prejudiced revision; photo is relevant; editor is hateful of the constable policy)" and "(→Finances: Corrected awkward grammatical structure which was likely written in negligent haste by Eja2k.)" on edits that I did not play any role in generating content for - just restored them after the vandalism. It should also be noted the same IP attacked 3 usertalk pages (the 3 editors that did reverts) in this incident. eja2k 18:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That person is just someone who enjoys messing with others. Blocking the user (even temporarily) suffices. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent vandalism reversed...but not all of it was vandalism?

It was noted that a multiple number of revisions were reversed on Dec. 4 to this article. While several (many) were opinionated, non-neutral, and/or without reputable citation, some were legitimate editions to the grammar, structure, and consistency of the article. Perhaps some of those changes should have remained, or should have been addressed serially, to maintain the useful changes versus those of a vandalism nature. Also, regarding the vandalism notes, it does point back to a previous statement above about possibly including a section regarding complaints and public backlash on the TTC service and personnel. My two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divemasterjohn (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the vandal returned (and blocked again). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

...and again. Wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth (unfortunately, truth is often distorted). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth"...This is a true, though not very agreeable statement. See you soon...

--74.14.4.189 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) TS

In light of my recent well-referenced claims, I'm not sure "verifiability" is up for grabs even. Is this a case of 'Once a vandal, always a vandal'? Even when the information is legit? --74.14.4.189 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC) "TS"

TS, I recommend that to redeem yourself, you should create an account. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:1949 Toronto TTC YongeSubwayConstruction1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1949 Toronto TTC YongeSubwayConstruction1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

CPI Graphic

The CPI is generally continuous while TTC fare prices are subject to discontinuities when the price increases. I think that the graphic is a little bias in that it starts in a year before a price increase which emphasizes the disparity. It would be most fair to start the graphic mid-way between a fare increase in my opinion. I think the graphic is a great idea and helps with the content of the article and I don't mean to offend User:Worcester Squire for a meaningful contribution. However, I think the graphic is a little unfair in it's present form. I used the POV template as I don't know of a better one for this situation. Feel free to replace it with something more appropriate if it exists. 70.48.209.247 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rapid Transit

"Queen Subway plan ... now necessitate its construction within the next 20 years to relieve pressure from the growing ridership on the Yonge subway line" is not supported by any footnote or article. Although there are plans for the DRL (downtown relief line), they do not necessitate it being of the same size and order as a Queen Subway plan. In fact the DRL line coexists with the Queen St streetcars and there have been streetcar carhouses planned for the new streetcar along Queen Street. 209.217.122.9 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of fansites

I've noticed that there's a reference recently added to this article showing a link to Transit Toronto's website.

Although I frequent it for information on a variety of subjects, I also recognize the inapproriateness of the site, i.e. its not being recognized an an official authority.

Visit WP:FANSITE, section 11 for details.

Being that it's purpose is a clearinghouse for information from a variety of agencies, but not recognized as an official source, it's questionable in that it could cause conflicts with another that may feel that another site would be just as approriate, whether showing pictures, opinions and so forth.

Comments?

--Allamericanbear (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Read here for discussion regarding the use of Transit Toronto: Talk:Bloor–Danforth line/GA1. In that discussion, Transit Toronto is acceptable enough to be used as a source for GA status. In fact, there are many articles on Wikipedia that have external links to Wikias and those have less authority than Transit Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a completely open site and the content has been vetted and copied from official sources. You are right - it is still a fan site. But in many ways it is more authoritative than the official sites, since they do not maintain a history and current informative pages disappear once they have served their purpose. Have you ever stood on a platform or at a bus stop, wondering what is wrong with the service? Usually it is a fellow passenger that keeps you informed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is very true. I find Transit Toronto as more than a fan site or a blog. I view it more like what the TTC should have been when it comes to detailed information about its history and its fleet/rolling stock. In fact, the author keeps a list of citations when writing the articles, which is unlike most fan sites of its type. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This page is part of a WikiProject. Please see that page for guidelines and volunteer to help with related articles.

This article would, at least in my view, be improved by more information regarding the finances, higher level policy issues, and apex management structure and personnel of the TTC.

Redeveloped facilities: Weston Streetcar Terminal on Keele Street in the Junction was an off-street streetcar terminal. This was a joint TTC and Township of York Railways facility, the only such one. 1941-1948.

North Toronto Terminal. Is this actually Glen Echo Terminal where the North Yonge radial cars and the city cars met? Or, does this refer to a location near the CPR North Toronto-Yonge Street station (presently a LCBO retail store).

Other old facilities long-gone include Frederick Street freight house in downtown Toronto used by radial cars that ran in during the night. Also, until about 15-20 years ago, nearby George Street rail yard.

Throughout the city many old streetcar and bus loops have been closed (this has accelerated in recent years) and sold off for redevelopment.

Proposed car barn shown as Runnymede. It is my understanding the TTC referred to it as Britannia, for a short dead end street in the middle of the property.

ATU 113 History link at bottom of the page goes to a domain that is currently for sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velochicdunord (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please find sources to back these up. Note that Transit Toronto is an acceptable source, since it contains references to back up. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Street car Police shooting incident

Should that incident (caught on tape) from this year in which an 18-year old was killed by police gunshots following a standoff be included in the list especially it got widespread national coverage? 96.21.72.195 (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

See here. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

East Bayfront LRT

Suggest move Queens Quay East light rail line to East Bayfront LRT. See Talk:Queens Quay East light rail line for this. Martin Morin (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Toronto subway lines

I have started a discussion on whether to use line names or line numbers in article text at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Toronto#Referring_to_Toronto_subway_lines. Ground Zero | t 19:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to trim this article down

this article is now long and unwieldy. There is too much detial in some areas. I propose to undertake a major edits to bring it back to a reasonable length and provide appropriate and balanced level of detail to different topics. Here are particular issues that I propose to address:

• The third paragraph – discussion of the “Red Rockets” phrase doesn't belong int he intro -- could be moved
• The “Past transit operators” chart – remove – this also appears in the History of the TTC article
• Under “Rapid Transit” –the paragraph on the history of rapid transit along Eglinton should be replaced by a sentence about the construction of the Crosstown line.
• “Streetcars” is too long, especially where it gets into the specs for the planned purchase of new cars, which is now underway, and the use of two PCC cars on the 509 during summer Sundays a few years ago.
• Under “Terminals” – I don’t think this is the right place to list streetcar loops. They can be covered in the Toronto streetcar loops article.
• Under “Cleaning” -- The list of improvements (new soap dispensers!) that were done in 2012 doesn’t belong in an overview article, or really any encyclopedia article
• Incidents – should this be split off into its own article?

Any comments? Or should I just be bold? Ground Zero | t 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. The article is too long. The incidents can be moved to a new article (and suicides can move to the incidents article as well). Some of the stuff can be moved to Public transportation in Toronto as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fully support all this, especially the items that really belong in other articles. Great initiative! Radagast (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started. It's already looking better, but I encourage others to pick up the garden shears and have it too. Ground Zero | t 19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

A criticism section is needed as alot of criticism has arisen in the past few years and discussed in newspapers from mismanagement (including delays) public strikes and the behavior of many TTC employees. 99.227.90.213 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

perhaps a small section would be in order, however please note there are 2 articles that focus on the 2 most recent labour disruptions (the can be found here: 2006 Toronto Transit Commission wildcat strike and here: 2008 Toronto Transit Commission strike) as well the Toronto Transit Commission personnel article has a list of all labour disruptions. We must also remember not to go over the top detailing ever little 'incident' from sleeping collectors, and lists of every subway related delay. eja2k 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added it--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cell Service and WiFi

TTC has announced cellular service in select subway stations for WIND Mobile users, as wells as expansions for Wifi, especially with the Pan Am Games approaching. These should take place over the next few years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Alligator (talk • contribs)

A few changes have been made. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fares and Fare gates

TTC is including E-ticketing. They are also considering new faregates or farelines. Should we add these in? Matt12ho (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, be bold and add that info to the article, along with its source! Conifer (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto Transit Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611181807/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=FrontPage&articleID=1055 to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=FrontPage&articleID=1055

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Trimming again

I have done another trim of this article to deal with the unending campaign to load this single article up with all sorts of details about the TTC (announcement systems, safety equipment on vehicles, fares, etc.) and then to repeat over and over and over and over and over again that the Flexity streetcars are "new", "low-floor", and "accessible". While I assume that the anon editor means well, his/her ongoing crapification of this article creates unnecessary work for other editors. I will continue to revert any edits that are made in this style. Ground Zero | t 12:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be under pending changes? For me, it should. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support that. Ground Zero | t 10:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Communications section

This section on communications seems to be overly detailed for an overview article. Any ideas on where this information could be moved to a subarticle? Ground Zero | t 13:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be in a separate article, such as Toronto Transit Commission communications. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Merging Personnel, Management, and Current Management Team Sections

They seem like related sections, and aren't too big in content.

We could do something like:

• 6 Personnel
  • 6.1 Management
    • 6.1.1 Current Management Team
  • 6.2 Labour Disputes

Thoughts? LargeDelta (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks more manageable. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto Transit Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926173206/http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/2/1mvtaf45i2suqxi5b1obsqyx/6457201112012081800189.PDF to http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/cache/2/1mvtaf45i2suqxi5b1obsqyx/6457201112012081800189.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Presto Fare Gates

Should we add the new Presto Fare gates? Link: The Star reports on Fare Gates Matt12ho (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Matt12ho: Add what to where? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: Perhaps in the section about Presto? Where do you think will be the best place? Or should we drop the idea? Matt12ho (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Matt12ho: So, go ahead. Why don't you just add the supplemental referenced info. The article already mentions the readers which are in the gates. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Took the liberty of updating Main Street (TTC) with the news as well. Radagast (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Are we ready to adopt WP:CANSTATION?

With the impending renaming of Downsview station to Sheppard West, it seems like the perfect time to bring this proposal to fruition, so that we can be consistent as the new stations are added to the network. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Too bad Secondarywaltz very much retired from Wikipedia, but I am in support of the proposal. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: You haven't fully retired, so you should take a look as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributionsi)} 23:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Johnny Au: This is all screwed up, with uninformed uninvolved editors doing random system changes and just creating a mess, but if you want to go ahead I'll keep an eye on things. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that everything is screwed up. We would need a greater consensus on this matter. We might even have to use Template:Under construction. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely true. CANSTATION is a mess and isn't the uniform naming convention that USSTATION, WP:AUSTATION| and UKSTATION aimed to create. We might have to seek a more global consensus. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We need to seek a more global consensus. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done It has been adopted fully, compete with disambiguations if necessary. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD on Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet

This AfD call for the Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet article may be of interest to editors of this page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD call for List of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes

People are invited to comment on a call for deletion of List of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes (and a number of similar pages) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ridership Figures

I've changed the ridership figures on this page a couple times now to reflect the numbers given in the cited source. There is a major distinction to be made between passengers carried and unlinked trips. A single passenger making a transfer on their trip counts as two unlinked trips. Whether we cite the number of passengers (1.7m/weekday) or the number of trips (2.7m/weekday) makes a big difference! To anyone who may edit these figures in the future, please make note of the distinction. Nate Wessel (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ride the Rocket

In TTC History it makes reference to the 'red rocket' subways being the genesis of the expression and advertising slogan, 'Ride the Rocket'. To my recollection, the 'red rocket' more referred to the ancient PCC street cars for which that nickname was initially used. I notice as well that there isn't a citation related to this assertion. Any suggestions on tracking this down? Did the TTC use an advertising agency at the time?

Here is a dry reference to the streetcars: TTC Milestones. ogenstein (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll check Wheels of Progress when I get the chance. Useddenim (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BAI (migrated from User talk:Joeyconnick)

@Jeremyforan:

I am bringing the discussion about the Toronto Transit Commission and BAI to you [Joeyconnick], since Jeremyforan messaged me instead of you, since you reverted Jeremyforan's edit, while I am just the messenger. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Bringing what message? If Jeremyforan has an issue with my revert, it should be discussed on the Toronto Transit Commission's Talk page (i.e. here). Two things immediately spring to mind: if they messaged you rather than me or discussing it on the appropriate Talk page, then they are apparently new to Wikipedia. Plus on your page, they stated they work for the entity in question, in which case they should not editing info about said entity as that's a clear conflict of interest. Plus WP:NOTBROKEN handles any cases where we are linking to what is now a redirect for a company's former name. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to the correct place. However, I will wait for Jeremyforan to reply here before I will take any further action. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)