TTC's Seasonal Services: Do They Make Sense?

With the recent service changes this past Sunday, TTC's seasonal service offerings are the largest they have been in many decades. In accordance with this, TTC has also introduced new branding to reflect seasonal routes: all are now numbered in the 200-series, with pink being the colour chosen to represent them.

Having taken all four routes, I decided I wanted to give some of my thoughts on the routes, and how they can be made even better. While thinking this post through, I realized that the seasonal routes speak to a significant challenge that Toronto has had for many years.

In this blog post, I will be providing my thoughts on the branding, each of the four routes, offer further suggestions for new seasonal services, and some comments on the broader implications of providing service 'seasonally.'

The Branding

As mentioned, the seasonal routes were all numbered in the 200-series, and are identified with a pink icon on stops, signage, and maps. I think this was a good idea, as it makes TTC service a bit more intuitive. That said, it's less important than when the express routes were renumbered to the 900-series, because there really is no difference operationally between the seasonal routes and other local services. I guess people are to see the 200s and think, "Oh, this route only runs in summer, so we better go soon!"

My issue with the branding is how slow TTC is to update things. Although my express route was renumbered to the 900-series in late 2018, it took four years for stop poles to be updated. The same is true here: many stops lack proper signage, which can obviously be confusing. While at Eglinton and Brimley, I helped a group of girls locate the stop for the 201 route, as the pole still had its old number on it, 175. Without consistency, faith in the system is reduced. When TTC chooses to not act on opportunities to be consistent, it's a bit disheartening.

Hmm, this doesn't look right.

The Routes

Now to speak about the routes. Overall, I think highly of the routes, but each has a glaring issue that TTC completely overlook, which I think reduces their functionality within the broader network of transit services in Toronto.

200 Toronto Zoo

This route is the only of the four that has not been offered in some way, shape, or form prior. Buses run from the Toronto Zoo to Rouge Hill GO Station via Meadowvale, Sheppard, and Port Union. Service ran on weekends beginning in May, and on weekdays as of yesterday. The main goal of the route, according to the TTC, is to provide a consistent connection to Lakeshore East GO train service at Rouge Hill. Overall, the route is quick, and its frequency makes connections from the GO trains relatively seamless, so travel from destinations to the west is easy. Additionally, it improves service on Sheppard east of Meadowvale.

However, I have two gripes about the service. The first relates to transfers to the GO train. Since the transfers from the 200 to the train are not timed, it is possible to arrive at Rouge Hill has the train is leaving, forcing a half hour wait. Because of this, anyone travelling to the Zoo from Durham Region, at least on weekends, is much better off taking GO's 96Z bus route. This could be fixed with minor scheduling adjustments, making service more 'pulsed' instead of a consistent headway, but this would have to occur next year.

As mentioned, this route provides extra service on Sheppard, in particular on the 85A branch on weekdays, and the 85D on weekends. The A runs through Meadowvale, whereas the D diverts through the Zoo along the way. When it was originally proposed, in the 2023 Annual Service Plan, it was supposed to be installed alongside a change to the 85 where weekend service to Rouge Hill GO would be switched to the 85A. This would have resolved a long-standing complaint of the 85D: people travelling through Meadowvale are dealt ten minutes extra travel time through the Zoo. By not doing this, through travelers are still burdened with a longer trip time, and many still won't benefit from the additional 200 service.

201 Bluffer's Park

The 201 Bluffer's Park bus is a simple renumbering of the old 175 Bluffer's Park, but, as of yesterday, with the addition of weekday service instead of just the weekends that had been offered since 2018. As the name suggests, this route operates to Bluffer's Park, from Kennedy Station, via Eglinton and Brimley. 

I love this route. It provides transit access to one of the city's most isolated destinations, and it makes the trek to and from the park for those without a car significantly safer. Especially with how quickly the parking lot at Bluffer's Park fills up, transit is a great option. TTC and the City worked hard to make this route work, especially considering the numerous operational constraints that existed south of Kingston Road.

My biggest issue with the 201 is north of Kingston Road, however. From Kennedy Station to Brimley and Kingston, the 201 duplicates the 12 Kingston Road, serving the same stops. Additionally, it runs at similar frequencies. However, the TTC has scheduled it in a way that the 12 and the 201 run at the same time, instead of properly spaced. On weekends, the 12 and 201 each run every 15 minutes, which could mean a 7.5 minute combined service, but is instead two buses every 15 minutes. On weekdays, when both are every 24, a 12 minute headway is possible, but doesn't happen. This is true in both directions.

On more minor issues, because of RapidTO's lack of a stop at Brimley, transferring to and from routes going further east requires a bit of a walking transfer. As well, for whatever reason, the 201 is not scheduled to stop at Minerva, even when the 12 does. Weird!

202 Cherry Beach

The 202 Cherry Beach is a renumbering of the 172 Cherry Beach, a route created last year as a (somewhat ad-hoc) solution to the fact that the previous service, the 121 Fort York-Esplanade, was being reorganized northeastwards. This route runs from Union Station to Cherry Beach via Bay, Queens Quay, and Cherry, and has run on both weekdays and weekends since May. 

This route works alright I suppose. It provides a connection to the popular destination, and adds extra service on Queens Quay. While it obviously has a lot of traffic to contend with, there is enough running time where departures from the ends are still somewhat on time. The stop at Unwin allows for significantly reduced walking distance for those who work on the otherwise forgotten street.

My issue with the 202 Cherry Beach is a bit more fundamental. Yes, Cherry Beach is popular, but why does it need a direct link to Union Station of all places? It feels odd to me to prioritize a connection here over a number of other places I could think of. I have long thought that a full-time extension of the 65 Parliament would work, and TTC has hinted a full-time extension of the 72 Pape in due course. Either would have the additional benefit of providing service to Unwin year-round. Are they overkill? Yes. Is the consistency worth it? Also yes.

203 High Park

The 203 High Park is a reprieve of the old 30B High Park (f.k.a. Lambton) service. This route runs from High Park Station, making a counter-clockwise loop through the park. Service runs only on weekends, and it began running yesterday, later than the other seasonal routes.

High Park is closed to cars on weekends. This is the best choice the city has ever made, as the park is both busy, yet quiet. The TTC bus is one of the only vehicles permitted to travel through the park, and is scheduled to operate at an average speed of 9.2 kilometers an hour (we have a new slowest TTC route! The 75 Sherbourne is a whole kilometer an hour faster!) It provides a basic service to many of the destinations in the park from the subway, especially for those with mobility issues in mind. 

My main gripe is speed. Look, I totally understand it needs to go slow through a park filled with people, but I was able to lap the bus on my bike, twice, in like, ten minutes. If you don't have a bike or use Bikeshare, and have a choice about whether or not you can use the route, I think it's only worth using if you are near the Grenadier Restaurant. Otherwise, just walk.

What's Missing?

Last year, the TTC operated the 174 Ontario Place-Exhibition route for the first time, which did a short trip between those two destinations. On my trip on it, my driver commented I was the first rider in three days. Weekend service was removed by June due to events mucking up service. This service did not return this year, and for good reason. However, the idea was there: while getting to the Exhibition is easy, a number of destinations sandwiched between the Gardiner and the lake are difficult to get to: Ontario Place, the Boulevard Club, and Palais Royale. I wish TTC and the City could work together to run a route from the Exhibition to these destinations, maybe looping at the also isolated High Park Children's Garden. This route would still be susceptible to the delays the 174 experienced, so I unfortunately feel that any attempts may be in vain.

The short-lived 174 Ontario Place-Exhibition.

My only other suggestion is a route service part of Rouge Park. I can envision a route running from Markham and Steeles to the Toronto Zoo, via Old Finch. While low bridges prohibit serving all the trailheads, at least something could be offered. 

The Big Problem with Seasonal Routes

When I looked at the badge used to identify the seasonal routes, I thought that the half-sun, half-snowflake represented 'seasonal' well. But when I thought about it, I realized TTC has never offered seasonal services in winter. The only option I could suggest would be to the Ski Centre at Earl Bales Park, but that may require buses with storage for equipment. Nevertheless, I think the lack of winter destinations raises a big red flag for me. 

Toronto, especially in the past few years, has had calls to be more winterized. Majority of Toronto's public parks become deadzones for a few months of the year, where the snow remains untouched. Of the parks that are used, the majority are for walks or tobogganing, and maybe a few for skiing and snowshoeing. When I walk through Maryvale Park near my house during winter, I feel as if I'm the first person in ages. Toronto is simply not a winter city, and our public spaces are very seasonal. While fault lies at the foot of the city, not the TTC, I can't help but think that the offering of seasonal routes reinforces that we aren't a city that is fun all year round. I mean, why would you want to go to Bluffer's Park/Cherry Beach/the Toronto Zoo during winter? These could be all year-round services if Toronto was serious about being a city enjoyable 365 days a year, but we aren't at that point yet. While I do think some progress is slowly being made in terms of winterization, we are simply not at that point yet.

Conclusion

 TTC's seasonal services are far from perfect, but are overall a welcome part of the city's transit network. While they are not the reason that Toronto is not a winter city, the suggestion that their destinations are only desirable during summer reinforces this bad mindset that the city of Toronto has.