Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
There is a bus loop at High Park Station.
From
Don't understand why they don't just combine the 149 Etobicoke-Bloor bus with the 189 Stockyards bus.
|
|
|
- Thread starter PMT
- Start date
From
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
Maybe this has been answered already in another thread, but why were Toronto (and Montreal) so late on the accessible band wagon? Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa have had accessible stations for decades. Why didn't they see the writing on the wall back in the late 70s and 80s like everyone else?
nfitz
Superstar
Everything that Montreal and Toronto built since the 1980s was always accessible. Did all the others have any rail infrastructure of note pre-1980s? You certainly see far worse than Toronto, and perhaps even Montreal, in systems of a similar or older vintage. Paris, London, NYC.
Toronto did the easier stuff like GO years ago. I'm not sure about EXO.
max
Active Member
The Scarborough RT would be an exception to that.
This quote describes the protests of the opening day on March 23, 1985:
from: https://www.blogto.com/city/2013/07/a_brief_history_of_the_scarborough_rt/
Of course, elevators were eventually added at Kennedy & STC, but not on the rest of the line.
nfitz
Superstar
Which part of the Scarborough RT was build since the 1980s? Even the Vancouver Skytrain, which opened after the RT, wasn't designed to be fully-accessible until an activist group pushed the issue.
With the Liberals promising large-scale upgrades and rebuilds of Line 3 to be completed by 2015, it's no surprise that they never scheduled (relatively cheap) accessibility upgrades to the other stations. They'd simply have done it when they extended the platforms and stations.
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
No. The blue line in Montreal was inaccessible until the 2010s, as was Line 3 in Toronto, and both were built in the 80s.
Edmontons LRT was accessible since the get go in 1978, as was the Ctrain and Skytrain built in the 80s.
Ottawa's transitway stations in the early 80s were built accessible, despite accessible buses not existing at the time
I'm talking about back then accessible stuff was starting to come into the public mind back then, but neither TTC or STCUM were putting in elevators at the time.
It just seems if they had been on board a little sooner it would have saved a lot of money and effort. I was wondering if they were actually opposed at the time for money reasons, or just assumed it wasn't worth the effort since the older parts of the system were inaccessible anyway
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
The first station with elevators was Downsview (now Sheppard West). That was 1996.
Northern Light
Superstar
Older systems around the world are generally behind the TTC in terms of accessibility.
In NYC only 28% of stations are accessible.
London, UK is at 33%
Accessibility of transport in London - Wikipedia
Paris is at less than 10%
Paris metro worst in Western Europe for disabled access as it hosts Paralympics
Our analysis reveals how disabled access to public transport compares in the UK and across Europe
inews.co.uk
Chicago is at 71%
Accessible transit - CTA
Learn about accessible transit services via bus and train from the CTA.
www.transitchicago.com
Toronto is at 78.5%
****
I think if you look back, what you would see is that the task of retrofits was seen as so wildly expensive in larger, older systems, the assumption tended to be that it wasn't do-able and that para-transit such as Wheel Trans would remain the norm.
For systems engaged in new construction or with much smaller as-built infrastructure, it was seen as much more do-able to be accessible from the get-go.
nfitz
Superstar
Once again. I said SINCE the 1980s. the 80s is not SINCE the 1980s.
LRT surface stops are really a different kettle of fish. As far as I know, the only underground or elevated 1970s Edmonton station was Churchill station, and the elevators were retrofit in the 1980s.
And I said other infrastructure pre-1980s. Other than the 5 original inaccessible Edmonton LRT stations, I'm struggling to think of anything.
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
So I guess that was the reasoning then. Even with new build stuff (say 1980+) they figured they would never retrofit the old stuff so they didn't bother. Downsview was accessible in 1996 because it was required by law at the timeOlder systems around the world are generally behind the TTC in terms of accessibility.
In NYC only 28% of stations are accessible.
London, UK is at 33%
Accessibility of transport in London - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Paris is at less than 10%
Paris metro worst in Western Europe for disabled access as it hosts Paralympics
Our analysis reveals how disabled access to public transport compares in the UK and across Europe
****
I think if you look back, what you would see is that the task of retrofits was seen as so wildly expensive in larger, older systems, the assumption tended to be that it wasn't do-able and that para-transit such as Wheel Trans would remain the norm.
For systems engaged in new construction or with much smaller as-built infrastructure, it was seen as much more do-able to be accessible from the get-go.
Northern Light
Superstar
I think that's the correct answer..
The thinking only shifted when the law required retrofitting over time.
* Though....... I'm not sure if there was separate regulation on subway stations prior to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, but that legislation was only actually passed in 2001.
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
My misunderstanding. I usually think of "since the Xs" as inclusive of that decade. But since you meant beginning in the 1990s then yes. But it was only because of legal requirements. The other systems were doing it voluntarily. Technically it's still voluntary in Edmonton and Calgary's case as there is still no accessibility law in Alberta
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
I guess you're right. Maybe because the Americans had passed the ADA in 1990, and there was already a campaign for a similar law in Ontario at the time they figured the writing was on the wall at that point, though they still probably never expected to retrofit earlier stations
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
Actually I agree the TTC has done a good job. Only Boston is further ahead in terms of accessible legacy systems, and Toronto is miles ahead of Montreal in the journey. Where my train of thought had been is why didn't they start sooner, but I think we've answered that now.Older systems around the world are generally behind the TTC in terms of accessibility.
In NYC only 28% of stations are accessible.
London, UK is at 33%
Accessibility of transport in London - Wikipedia
Paris is at less than 10%
Paris metro worst in Western Europe for disabled access as it hosts Paralympics
Our analysis reveals how disabled access to public transport compares in the UK and across Europe
Chicago is at 71%
Accessible transit - CTA
Learn about accessible transit services via bus and train from the CTA.
Toronto is at 78.5%
****
I think if you look back, what you would see is that the task of retrofits was seen as so wildly expensive in larger, older systems, the assumption tended to be that it wasn't do-able and that para-transit such as Wheel Trans would remain the norm.
For systems engaged in new construction or with much smaller as-built infrastructure, it was seen as much more do-able to be accessible from the get-go.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
The excuse for having the 149 Etobicoke-Bloor bus route is "because of delays in creating accessibility on Line 2 in the west end". What about when an elevator is out-of-service at any existing station due to maintenance, mischief, or a power failure? Shouldn't all underground electric railways (be they subway, LRT, or whatever the Ontario Line is) have parallel accessible surface routes using regular buses?
They could add articulated buses in the even of an "emergency track repair" for emergency shuttle service, to get headways every minute or three. An existing parallel service would be the start point for the shuttle, from every 20 to 30 minutes .
Last edited: