Another batch of mail from readers:

Scott Mercer writes:

1)  Complaint: “But buses can be rerouted!”  This is exactly the problem with buses.  They are not dependable in the long term.

2)  Buses carry fewer passengers than streetcars, LRV or subways.  They are smaller, less appealing, noisier, more crowded and less comfortable.  They get more people out of their cars and into public transit.

Steve:  I assume that you meant to say that streetcars, etc, get more people out of their cars.

3)  I’m from Los Angeles, which once had the WORLD’S LARGEST system of streetcars and interurban electric trains.  The whole thing was ripped out for a ghastly network of freeways instead of updating the streetcars, which you in Toronto have done with much foresight.  Come here to Los Angeles and ask ANYONE if they don’t think it was a bad idea to rip out our entire streetcar system.  If that guy can find ANYONE with that position I’ll give him a shiny Sacajawea dollar.

Steve:  And the real irony is that it was the network of interurbans that allowed LA to grow all over the place. The freeways came later.

David Cavlovic writes:

That’s hilarious!  I was about to send a question to you asking why can’t they resurrect the PCC design, and you already addressed it!  Still, the design lives, albeit in variations, in Europe.  Why won’t the TTC Mandarins reconsider a technology their forefathers helped to develop?!

Steve:  The really sad thing is that back in the 1960s, the TTC was working with Hawker-Siddeley (whose assets were acquired by UTDC and thence Bombardier) on a new streetcar design jointly with Tatra who were still churning them out for the eastern block countries in Europe.  Then, suddenly, everything went quiet.  Queen’s Park had discovered “Intermediate Capacity Transit” and the rest is history.

There are two reasons why we don’t build more PCCs now:  First, they are not low-floor cars, and you need a major truck redesign for that.  Second, the controllers are not solid state and the cars would use a lot more power than a modern car.

But, yes, it’s sad that we could have had a fleet of modern PCCs instead of the CLRVs and ALRVs that gave streetcars in Toronto such a bad name.

N. Clawson writes:

It’s nice to have a seat – but I notice the trend is towards sparser seating:

• The Montreal Metro’s – the new seating layout is sparser (I understand designed with input from customers.)
• Also, the STM is going with a 31 seat layout on the LF busses – which gives a practical capacity of about 80.
• European tram’s seem to have sparse seating – based on pictures I’ve seen.
• Vancouver’s SkyTrain has sparse seating.

I remember bench/side of car seating on some line (Bakerloo?) in the London Underground – so it’s not a particularly new concept.

Steve:  Just because “everybody else is doing it” doesn’t mean it’s right for Toronto.  The seating capacity for a new subway car with a mix of transverse and longitudinal seating is the same as on a car with all longitudinal (bench/perimeter) seating.  The issue here is not that we are adding or losing seating space, but that we are making the cars more attractive to people who prefer (some for health reasons) to use transverse seats.

Also, the TTC changed an early design that was open and easy to move around in with wheelchairs for one that had many barriers (poles).  This change was not vetted by the advisory committee on accessible transit (ACAT), but the staff still claimed that they supported the “new” design.  This was blatant misrepresentation and makes me wonder why some TTC staff have such a strong agenda for a specific floorplan in the cars.