Moments ago on the CBC, I listened to Councillor and TTC Commissioner Glenn De Baeremaeker talking about where transit should be going in Scarborough. Next week, the Scarborough caucus of Toronto Council will ask the TTC to adopt a plan to build a network of streetcar lines in Scarborough rather than simply replacing the RT line’s existing equipment.
Reading between the lines of De Baeremaeker’s comments, TTC staff are recommending the lowest-cost option — new RT cars — rather than conversion to LRT as the basis for a Scarborough network.
Clearly, Scarborough Councillors want a network that will improve service throughout the east end of Toronto. This is a big change from their former position asking for a subway replacement for the RT. The contrast with the situation on the Spadina extension through York University to Vaughan is quite amazing.
In today’s Star, we learn that Vaughan’s Mayor Di Biase is confident that Ottawa will fund the subway as well as bus-only lanes and LRT in York Region. Just imagine how much more LRT we could build if we didn’t insist on tthat $2-billion subway extension.
The tide may finally be turning for LRT in Scarborough, and I hope that the TTC will embrace this proposal. Let’s see how much an LRT network would cost, what sort of service it can provide and how soon we can build it.
Steve Munro 
Have there been any proposals published anywhere that suggest what such a network would entail in its most basic form? I think that that type of information has to be out there quickly so there is time to sell the merits of such a plan to the public in the east end.
Steve: I expect that we will hear all about it when the Scarborough Councillors make their pitch at the TTC meeting on August 30.
LikeLike
As a TTC driver for the past 17 years, the vast majority in Scarborough, I can only say that it is about time someone tries to improve the transit in the east end of the city. Currently it takes you anywhere between 40-50 minutes just to get to the subway or RT if you are travelling on a local bus. Then there is the added time if you are going downtown. Scarborough has been ignored for too long and something needs to be done.
LikeLike
I am mixed about the tram solution for Scarborough. My dream is always to extend the ICTS line and have trams branch off from it. One rapid trunk line with trams branching off would be bring speed to the network. Anyways, my response is not about ICTS technology.
It will be interesting to see how trams running on a complete right of way will perform. Bombardier has indicated that a metro or ICTS can achieve a speed 3.5 times faster than a bus. A tram running like Spadina is only faster than a bus by 2 times. There is no question that trams operating between McCowan and Kennedy will be very fast. What will happen once the trams have to sit behind traffic lights as it heads east beyond Bellamy? There seems to be no plans to extend the exclusive right of way east past Bellamy.
If Scarborough choose to build trams, will it use an overhead wire of a third rail? Bombardier has indicated that the Flexity trams can be modified to run with a third rail. This will reduce the cost of retrofitting the existing line. However, if the line is to expand east, Scarborough would be force to build a right of way since third rail cannot cross an intersection at grade.
To end off, Scarborough should take the lead in insisting that the trams run on standard railroad guage. This will ensure that future vehicles do not require modification to run on the network. This will lower cost. Also, pantographs should be used as well. According to Bombardier, pantographs are better than poles. If we are going to spend money, we might as well future proof the system.
Steve: The speed of any transit operation comes from several factors including stop spacing, acceleration under load and station dwell times. The further stops are apart, the more time a vehicle spends running at top speed. There is a reasonable upper bound of about 80kph because unless the stops are very far apart and the right-of-way completely protected, vehicles will not be able to run at top speed anyhow. Acceleration is important to deal with heavy loads, grades, and the rate at which a vehicle can reach cruising speed. Station dwell times are affected both by loading schemes (all door, front only, low floor, high floor) and fare collection (pay-as-you-enter or self-service). These principles apply to every mode. Congestion effects come in if there is any mixed running or potential conflict such as signallized crossings.
The Spadina car runs at a glacial speed because it has so many stops. The cars are actually capable of running at a higher speed than the ICTS cars, but nobody would dream of whizzing down Spadina at that rate. The Spadina line from King to Bloor has a round trip of 6.31 km that takes 28 minutes. The RT trip is 12.81 km in 24 minutes. However, the Spadina car has 20 stops plus a few extra traffic lights in one trip, while the RT has only 12. The average stop spacing on Spadina is .32 km while on the RT it is almost 1.1 km. Once a tram gets past Bellamy, the real issue will be to ensure that it is not held needlessly at traffic lights (as the cars on Spadina are all the time). If the stops on a Scarborough LRT network are at 1/3 km spacings, then the trams will spend most of their time stopped to load and unload passengers.
Third rail operation is out of the question for any line that will run on streets or even across them at grade. In any event, the existing third and fourth rails of the RT will have to be replaced when the line is resized to take wider cars, and the power system on any new trams will not use the unique +/- 300 volts (that’s approximate) dual power supply found on the RT. As for pantographs, we were supposed to get them with the Spadina car (just look at the overhead), but the TTC chickened out because they did not want to bear the cost of retrofitting other parts of the system for dual trolley/pan operations.
LikeLike
The change of attitude from a costly 1 subway line to a multiple LRT network is amazing indeed, and I applaud this new direction. Here are some quotes from the Scarborough Mirror newspaper :
Maybe now Scarborough will finally get it right … and the folks up in Vaughan might want to reconsider their subway plans.
Steve: I really want to see a detailed, properly costed and presented LRT network proposal for Scarborough as it could be a model for what could happen in Vaughan and Mississauga. Vaughan is already thinking about LRT, but they see the VCC subway terminal as the jumping off point for their network. York University is in love with their subway. Imagine what they could have if a network of LRT lines in Vaughan and Northern Toronto converged on the York campus!
LikeLike
It’s interesting to see that months ago, most people were gearing towards a Scarborough subway. Now it seems that LRT is the most popular way to go. Perhaps all the news about the uncertainties of the Spadina subway extension is the reason for the change of attitude.
But if Toronto decides to go with LRT, does that mean the CLRV’s and ALRV’S we have right now, will be used? Or will the TTC purchase different cars? Like Benny, I’m skeptical of the speed that LRT’s can reach, even if they get their own right-of-way. I can imagine a CLRV roaring on the original SRT line, attempting to reach max speed. It isn’t pretty.
However, I can also imagine a ton of attractive LRT lines that will attract people to get out of their cars and take transit. Hopefully this will be the start of something good.
Steve: The TTC is planning to buy new streetcars/LRVs. As for the CLRVs, I rode on a three-car train of them in Boston when they were on loan as demonstrators years ago. They ran at 50 mph (80 kph) easily and comfortably.
LikeLike
A third rail system, while probably not a good choice for Toronto, is not is completely unheard of for systems that run on streets or across them at grade.
In Bordeaux, France, CITADIS are used, both with overhead wires, (15km) and in third rail operation (10km). The third rail operation is used in areas that were deemed too architecturally significant for the use of overhead wires.
For part of the ground level power supply sections mixed traffic, and I believe pedestrian crossings, are allowed. In the ground level power supply sections, the third rail is cut into segments that only receive power when completely covered by the tram.
This system is likely very expensive. Especially considering the city could get stuck with a proprietary system that may be hard to replace.
LikeLike
It’s quite possible to combine third-rail and overhead-wire operation without any of the complicated technology used in Bordeaux. There are plenty of vehicles in the world, for both tramways and main-line railways, which carry both a classic third-rail pickup (just like on Toronto’s metro trains) and a pantograph, switching between them whenever they cross between the two types of network.
Some cities use this to have trams run from overhead wires on city streets, and then switch to a third rail when they go underground or onto a private right-of-way, much like Benny Cheung was suggesting. The trains that Eurostar use on their London to Paris and Brussels route switch between third rail in England, one pantograph in the Channel Tunnel and in France, and another in Belgium, all three working at different voltages.
Steve: The real point here is that we are talking about an LRT network, and I cannot see any reason why it shouldn’t all use overhead power pickup. The issue of 3rd rail is a red herring because so little of any new network would be underground. One point here, also, is that if we have low floor cars, underground stations would have platforms level with the track and people could easily walk over to the third rail. Not a good idea for obvious reasons.
LikeLike
This dramatic turnaround in attitude by the Scarborough councillors is a real shot in the arm to those of us who actually spend time looking at the realities of transit in Toronto. Now, in order to make sure that this thing actually moves forward properly, we must make sure that:
The councillors not only stick with this ‘network’ attitude, but are shown how to do the thing right (i.e. make them understand that Spadina’s/Future St. Clair’s problems don’t lie in flaws with LRT technology, but in specific misdeeds by the City and TTC with intersections and signals).
The people of Scarborough (the ‘masses’) are given ample opportunity to see the plans, and to be shown why LRT is the best option. We need to really sell this thing in order to block out the misplaced subway mania.
Those same people must understand that LRT does NOT mean another ICTS running down the middle of every street (the number of people who confuse LRT with the Scarborough RT line is astonishing).
All of that said, I am very encouraged by this dramatic shift in attitude, and I sincerely hope that the City and the TTC will do things right in Scarborough so that it may serve as a shining example for the rest of Toronto’s transit-phobic suburbs.
LikeLike
I am impressed in this serious move towards LRT optoins. I have heard it said that for the same cost as extending the YUS line to York University and the Sheppard line to Scarborough Town Centre, we could build about 250 km of LRT lines.
Having just returned from Calgary yesterday, and from St. Louis last week, I have seen the other side of the mountain, and it is very good indeed.
I really hope that the TTC does not screw up this, and that is possible by going in either direction: put it in mixed traffic and you may as well just stick with busses; or put it in a fully enclosed right of way and you may as well build a full gold-plated subway line.
In Calgary and St. Louis (and in Edmonton, Denver, and San Francisco from my experience), the LRT systems are not fully enclosed and cross streets with grade crossings where they are not elevated or in a cutting. Calgary’s “transit mall” down 7 AV is a nice idea where only busses and city service vehicles are allowed.
LikeLike
I wonder if this sudden turn around is due to this very blog. I’m sure at least of few of the councillors have read your site after being directed to it by letters from constituents.
Your arguments for LRT technology are hard to refute and have influnced a lot of people on the Transit-Toronto email list. The councillors may have been also moved to look beyond the hype of subway building.
Perhaps once the debate really starts up over the Spadina line extension, you will be able to convence councillors to abandon that idea, as well.
Steve: I know that Richard Soberman, the study’s author, has been making the point about the possibilities of an LRT network over and over again. The staff recommendation (now visible on the TTC website and which I will review sometime in the next day along with other reports) is to re-equip the RT and study extending it along with a network of LRT or BRT lines. Their position is that this can be done much faster than an LRT conversion even though it retains the orphaned technology and precludes some other options.
LikeLike
This is fantastic news. Now part of the task will be showing the citizens of Toronto that “LRT” in the sense that it looks like it will go (Calgary, Edmonton, Denver, St. Louis) is NOT the same as a streetcar, nor the RT.
At grade crossings from personal experience in Calgary and Edmonton at least – LRT takes precidence over cars – with railway style arms descending in front of the car lanes while the LRT zooms past (Calgary’s 7th Avenue notwithstanding). If a transit mall is designed, we have to make sure that we do it right, otherwise we’ll wind up with transit mall like Buffalo’s.
Speed will not be an issue – I’ve peered through the window behind the driver in some of the older Duwag cars, and in certain sections the LRT runs at 60-75 km/h between stations.
I don’t want to use the word “rebranding”, but I do believe that in this case it is the most relevant word to what needs to get done. The city has a thought that Spadina is an LRT…frankly no — it’s just a streetcar on separated grade. And well the RT – sure … but we could say it’s the same as the Skytrain in Vancouver — and left coasters don’t call their system an LRT.
When people realize that LRT in the pantograph sense + separated grade right of way — with the economics of it — there will be demand for it all over the city (… wait I went into a dream sequence there …) I sure wouldn’t mind a true LRT line up Pape/Don Mills, or a route on Eglinton or even a route across 7 where VIVA is right now or through the heart of Mississauga. Even when underground (which Eglinton would require at points) — the cost per km for an LRT is much less than a conventional subway.
Good luck Scarborough — and let’s get it right — for the good of the city & GTA!
LikeLike
Congratulations to the Scarborough councillors for finally putting some much needed logic to their considerations. I love the statement of discovery that an LRT network can “service 10 times as many people for the same amount of money.” Have we heard what brought about the mindshift? Maybe we should be asking the Scarborough councillors to have a chat with Mr. Sorbara/York University/Vaughan and the other players for the subway extension to Vaughan. Is there time to get them to change there minds? Come to think of it, have they ever been presented with the layout of an LRT network that could replace the subway – something that shows them the magnitude of service that is possible to northeast Toronto, York University and Vaughan for the same level of funding that would be consumed by the subway?
As a rather extensive aside, I always thought this lack of an LRT network option was a failing of the environmental assessment for the subway extension. In the review of ‘alternatives to the undertaking’ to be considered instead of subway expansion, the report compared the cost and capacity of subway, road improvements (bus lanes and extra vehicle lanes), and LRT among others. In considering roadway improvements, the comparison looked at the value of improving road capacity (with bus lanes on Dufferin, Bathurst and Yonge or additional vehicle lanes on every major street between Islington and Don Mills Rd). Unfortunately when the report considered the merit of building LRT, LRT lines were only considered as a modification to the existing subway system (i.e.; as a direct replacement of the proposed subway or as connectors between the two NS subway lines) and not as a network on its own. Of course the study showed that a single LRT line can never provide the capacity of a subway. But the study never considered a network of LRT lines or the carrying capacity of that network.
I wonder if it’s too late to try to make a few converts?
LikeLike
If the TTC does plan on building more LRT lines, will they be [on right-of-ways] or will the TTC screw it up again and build mixed traffic? Also on the part of new streetcars, these will be using pantographs right? There is no way that pantographs and trolley poles can’t mix. I have heard it from many places that the TTC thinks that they cannot mix with each other, but how does it work in San Francisco with their MUNI? It’s composed of Breda cars using pantographs and old PCC trolleys running on trolley poles? Any one here think the TTC should move into the 21st century?
Steve: You will likely see both completely segregated lines as well as mixed traffic. A lot depends on what is available and the level of service to be provided. Current collection should be with pantographs — that’s what Spadina was designed for as you can see by looking at the overhead, even though the TTC got cold feet on that. Dual mode overhead (pans and trolley poles) is quite simple and Boston had it decades ago when they first started to replace their PCCs.
LikeLike