36 thoughts on “A Short History of the CLRV”

1. Despite their ‘worts’, I’ve come to be a big fan of the CLRV. With all the minor updates over time, a well-tuned CLRV is a great performer – it certainly feels like a sports car in comparison to an ALRV. The CLRV has reasonably stylish form throughout which was clearly carefully worked into the design of the visible mechanicals as well as the body. While its appearance is somewhat dated-looking now, it has a practical and respectable balance of form and function that is so lacking in most ‘modern’ designs. I think anyone would agree that the prototype ALRV 4900 built of CLRV parts was much more polished and attractive-looking than the final product (orange colour-scheme aside).

   What fouled-up the CLRV’s reputation primarily was that it was not used the way it was intended (read “not designed for the existing system”) and then was not maintained properly. Compromises designed for interurban-style service made the CLRV troublesome in the street-track network. The supposed “lumbering” of these cars has much to do with how they were operated and little to do with design flaws.

   I find most criticisms of the CLRV to be unfair and unwarranted. I’m also greatly concerned that when retirement comes these cars will be unceremoniously scrapped with only one or two preserved. We should at least be saving three so that the maximum trained consist can live one last time with restored couplers. (It is my life-long dream to own one myself! Will I have a shot or will the scrapper contract be signed long before we ever hear about it? I will put down my hard-earned cash to send an extra car to the museum!)

   I have a huge interest in the CLRV and its history as well as in all the related proposals that fell aside along the way. I very much hope this story is eventually published in a book (Mr. Filey? Are you listening? Heck, give me every last grain of info and I’ll do it myself!). I’d very much like to see the brochure about that next-generation PCC car that never was. Also, when you referred to the “one small sale” made by the UTDC, were you talking about the Boston CLRV demonstration, or was it the San Jose/Santa Clara articulated car? Or something else I somehow missed?

   Thanks for a history lesson.

   Steve: I was talking about San Jose/Santa Clara. Boston never bought any, although I remember a lovely ride at 50mph (the fastest the MBTA would allow) on a three-car train of CLRVs on the Highland Branch when the cars were on loan there.

   The San Jose/Santa Clara cars have been replaced by low floor equipment.

   As for brochures, I haven’t got the new PCC that never was online (my copy is a faded copy itself), but for a look at the original PCC design, please see my earlier post on that subject.

   LikeLike

2. I’m very disappointed that I was far too young to experience the Boston demo first-hand. I have to settle for photographs and second-hand accounts.
   One thing I’ve not heard the entire story on is to what extent the CLRV design was compromised to make it saleable to Boston. I’d heard the curved profile of the nose was specifically tailored to fit through their restrictive subway tunnels (and possibly Philadelphia’s confines as well, which I have had the ‘terror’ of experiencing!). I’d like solid information on which agencies had input on the CLRV design and what elements they were responsible for. (I’m not talking about the temporary add-ons for the Boston demo – the whistle, flood-light, flag holders, etc., but you are free to expand on that.) I’m also quite interested in hearing what the Boston folks’ impressions were, especially in terms of how the CLRV measured up against the Boeing at the time. Would they actually have accepted the marketing proposal of a married pair of tail-to-tail CLRVs with a single left-hand door set added into each?? (A sudo-ALRV, or SALRV? Say it fast and it sounds something like ‘Cé la vie’, which seemed to be message the UTDC was sending out to the world with that silly scheme!)

   LikeLike

3. I am afraid that the choice of these new cars will be very much a political decision. Yesterday there was a rather ridiculous article in the Toronto Star about McGuinty’s promise of a hydrogen GO train, touting the benefits of hydrogen because it would eliminate the emissions generated directly by the locomotive. No one–not even the reporter, apparently–thought to mention that merely electrifying the lines would have precisely the same effect, doubtless for far less money and in much shorter time. As you have discussed in the past, this is indicative of the way transit is thought about in Ontario–not as a serious means of transportation, but as a way to create political spin. If it was true with the CLRV, it will be true for these 100% low floor cars. One assumes that most of the people who make these addled decisions about transit would never dream of relying on it for their commute; if they did, they would demand technologies that work, not pipe dreams.

   Steve: A followup article in today’s Star shows the real culprits behind this scheme — the nuclear power industry. They salivate at the thought of using a steady load generation station to produce hydrogen gas.

   LikeLike

4. To the best of my knowledge from discussions with Ray Corley over the design period of the CLRV the curved “nose” (and “tail”) was required to fit a 52′ car on the sharpest TTC curve and had nothing to do with sales to any other city. Corley figured that if a Brill Witt (TTC’s longest) could fit around TTC curves, so could a new car (the PCCs were only a hair over 46′) but the ends needed to be sharpened. The CLRVs never really looked as long as a Brill Witt because of the extra foot in height that the high floor brought on.

   The high floor requiring the extra step over PCC cars was mainly so that high platform doors could be used as an alternative on the suburban lines if chosedn and partly to allow easy fitting of underfloor equipment. It has been cursed by everyone since.

   The entire San Jose UTDC articulated car fleet was re-sold, partly to Sacramento and partly to Salt Lake City. All 50 cars live on.

   LikeLike

5. Steve, Good job on the activism…

   I was wondering what ever happened to the MU’ing of the CLRV fleet? I know the original design specs for the CLRV included couplers and was wondering if the TTC is going to be considering adding couplers to any new fleet of streetcars they are planning on ordering?

   I was on the 511 bathurst car recently as it headed into union station and due to the problems incurred should an ALRV (which is normally used on the 511 line) break down in a tunnel I was on a CLRV. This CLRV was Full and packed into the car like sardines simply because it was a busy line during rush hour. This however would not have been the case if the cars had been coupled, and allowed for the same amount of capacity as would have normally been provided on the line had ALRVS been used as they normally are.

   So is the TTC thinking of providing couplers on any new fleet that they order, I feel it would be beneficial in situations such as this where a line that almost always runs ALRV’s due to capacity issues needs to run CLRV’s due to street cars entering a station or tunnel not to mention the fact that it could also add some capacity to the Spadina line as well.

   Steve: First off, the CLRVs had couplers originally but these were removed. One day, a former member of Council, the champion of the Spadina Expressway, was driving along a streetcar line and was terrified by the giant open maw of the CLRV that pulled up behind her. She appeared at a TTC meeting, and the couplers vanished to be replaced with the “Shiner Skirts” that now adorn the cars.

   The TTC had planned to put couplers back on some of the CLRVs as part of the major overhaul that has now been cancelled in favour of a new car order.

   As for the new cars, first off they will be even longer than ALRVs and so trains of them for city street operation are unlikely. For one thing, they won’t fit on the safety islands. The spec requires that they be able to handle grades such as the Bathurst Hill and the Harbourfront tunnel while pushing a disabled car. We can reasonably expect to see the Spadina line as an early convert to the new cars when they arrive.

   LikeLike

6. John Bromley writes:

   To the best of my knowledge from discussions with Ray Corley over the design period of the CLRV the curved “nose” (and “tail”) was required to fit a 52′ car on the sharpest TTC curve and had nothing to do with sales to any other city.

   I remember back when CLRVs were being introduced a sign somewhere at Lansdowne and College warning of insufficient clearance if a CLRV was turning. It may have been something like “Warning: a CLRV turning eastbound will not clear a westbound streetcar.” Obviously I have forgotten the exact wording of the sign. I’m pretty sure that it was at College and Lansdowne, not College and Dundas or Dundas and Lansdowne. The sign went away after some rebuild of the intersection–perhaps when the double track on Lansdowne went away.

   Steve: Your memory is just fine. The sign was for a north to east turning CLRV and yes, it is probable that the track geometry has been fixed to eliminate this problem.

   When the CLRVs were first proposed, they were going to be the same length as the PCCs. However, various people including me said “why not make them the same size as the Witts” for which the system had been rebuilt with appropriate clearances. In fact, there was a handful of curves that were still non-clearance, although the ones at Church and Wellington didn’t matter because nothing could ever come east-to-north at that location and the track has now been disconnected at King.

   LikeLike

7. Now, if we get all this suburban and beyond transit in the future, could we use the CLRVs for the service they seem to have been designed for? Lets have 3-car trains running up Hwy 10.

   LikeLike

8. I was at the last public meeting that Gordon Carton attended as Minister of Transportation at Don Mills Collegiate Institute on, I believe, a Thursday Night. The ministry boffins were there as were the engineers from God knows what group of consultants. They were pushing the fact that Mag-Lev had NO friction losses and would save who knows how much money in energy costs. I was doing some Grad Courses at U of T at the time in Engineering and was wearing my bright Gold Lettered U of T engineering jacket when I asked the boffins what the “frictional loss of a subway car were and what the power consumed by the levitating magnet to overcome friction in Mag Lev were. Their reply was that the answer was technically complicated. Gordon Carton, to his credit, said “I think that the gentleman can understand a technical answer so answer his question.” It turned out that an H1 car lost 10 hp per axle or 30 kW per car in friction losses for a crush capacity of 300 passengers (Their numbers not mine) while a maglev car used 7.5 kW per levitation magnet (or 30 kW total per car) to overcome friction while carrying 30 passenger. My reply was that they were spending the same power to carry one tenth the number of passengers as they were loosing to friction. Gordon did not look pleased with this revelation.

   My second question asked for the power rating for the motors to move these cars. The H1’s had four 100 hp motors (output) for a total consumption of 400 hp or 300 kW input. The Mag-Lev cars had motors that had an output of 85 kW at 25% efficiency or an input of 320 kW to move 30 people versus 300, but the rail grinding cost were much less. Gordon was now looking very unhappy. I then asked what would happen if the Levitating magnets failed when the engineer looked at a boffin and said, “Should we tell them about the wheels?” It turned out they had an emergency set of wheels that could be lowered by a hydraulic pump in case of a power or magnet failure. Gordon now had smoke coming from behind his ears. For some reason the “uneducated participants” at the meeting seemed to understand the concept that spending the same energy to carry 30 passengers without friction as was lost to carry 300 passengers with friction while the tractive power was higher did not seem to make a lot of sense. Gordon Carton also seemed to demonstrate his comprehension with some withering looks at the engineers and boffins. The following Tuesday Bill Davis replaced the newly educated Gordon Carton as transportation minister. It did not pay to try to understand the bafflegab that was being presented and get down to facts.

   After the meeting ended in some chaos I was approached, rapidly, by two gentlemen wearing suits and bright red ties who asked if I would be interested in writing some reports for Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. I said yes. Mag Lev soon died to be replaced by the Scarborough RT. This system was supposed to be much quieter as it would not have wheel and rail wear or gear noise. I did a theoretical study that said it would be 10 to 15 dB louder than claimed and I believe that the final noise was even higher, especially when the laminated layers in the reaction rail started to vibrate like a bad ballast in a fluorescent light. Thank you Bill Davis! I really would like to thank Gordon Carton who forced his boffins to answer a technical question. It is amazing that so called “smart people” can be taken in by snake oil sellers.

   I have ridden 100% low floor cars and doubt that any of them would negotiate the horizontal, and vertical curves in Toronto as well as the singe blade switches. It almost appears that the TTC wants these efforts to fail so that they can get on with an order of traditional cars that would have “fewer technical problems.” I find it hard to believe that the trolley poles could not handle enough current to power tha ALRV’s when traction locomotives with much higher current draw ran successfully from trolley poles, not to mention the Electroliners and MU PCC trains on Shaker Heights. I think that you might want to look at the overhead and power distribution system as well as the size of the trolley carbons and feed wire from the poles to the motors.

   A further thought to the “skinny” CLRV’s whose fronts were too narrow to allow the sign “Neville Queen” and forced the TTC to use “501 Neville”. I remember just after the new numbers replaced the route names Jay Nelson on CHUM FM saying that there was an accident at the corner of 504 and 506. What you don’t know where that intersection is? Call the TTC.

   LikeLike

9. The question is, was that Roncesvalles/Howard Park or Broadview/Gerrard? Or was Mr. Nelson just being a smart-ass?

   Can anyone PLEASE tell me how we go about preventing hydrogen bomb GO trains and self-destructing low-floor LRVs??? It’s looking like I’m not going to see electrified railways here in my lifetime, and with the potential delays caused by a disastrously performing LRV prototype we may very well end up having to rebuild the CLRVs anyway!

   It is facinating to note that Boston has gone full-bore into rebuilding their Type-7 LRVs, even having the control system modified to allow in-service train-lining with the Breda Type-8s. This meets the disability requirements of one accessable car per train, not the whole train. Why can’t we do something like this on potential multiple-unit routes? How about low-floor or low-loading trailers towed by rebuilt CLRVs? Modular capacity and accessability using existing equipment and operator training? GASP!!! If Witt cars could haul trailers then so can an LRV!

   LikeLike

10. I have a group called the TTC Environmental Citizen’s Group on Facebook, join by going to http://www.Facebook.ca, then either search my name (Janice Ashby, with the beagle puppy picture and add me as a friend, or join the group TTC Environmental Citizen’s Group. Adam Giambrone’s on Facebook too, I couldn’t believe he joined my site!

    LikeLike

11. Hi there Steve. I’m just reading all this stuff on the history of the CLRV and I couldn’t help but add my own comment.

    First of all I think that the new LRVs should have a centre headlight so that the tradition of having a centre lamp on Toronto’s streetcars can continue. Secondly, the commission’s demand that the new LRVs be 100% low floor is a dangerous road to take since I am more than well aware of the fact that the TTC is already retiring Orion 6s built just ten years ago, these buses also being 100% low floor. While buses and streetcars may have their differences, the notion of 100% low floor is definitely something that I don’t approve of. A split level LRV with say a low floor between the bogies may be a more feasible option, just as now all low floor buses are just split level buses with a low floor at the front with a high floor at the back.

    I know I’ve talked in the past about my love about transit technology from around the early 1980s and really its just a nostalgia thing since I was born around then. As someone who lives in Scarborough and has ridden the RT more than a few times I can tell you that the RT is more than a little noisy. The Bloor Danforth subway line should have just gone all the way to the town centre, but no unless you’re an extremely assertive individual like Mel Lastman, you can forget about it (never mind that almost all recent expansion of the subway in the last 20 years has happened in the former city of North York, of course if I could have chosen where the $1 billion would go it would go where it would get its money worth with perhaps say an underground exclusive ROW section for the 501).

    Jordan Kerim

    LikeLike

12. “Steve: Your memory is just fine. The sign was for a north to east turning CLRV and yes, it is probable that the track geometry has been fixed to eliminate this problem.”

    I saw the sign there a few weeks ago for the first time while making a bus-streetcar transfer because of the track construction. Either it’s been there all along or has been recently been reinstalled while the 506 cars turn back east because of that construction. The intersection itself has an abnormal shape, so it’s possible the tracks can’t be arranged to allow enough clearance.

    LikeLike

13. I prefer high-floor vehicles myself, but I smell another disaster coming. Are they once again going with a specialized and unproven vehicle that will inevitably have operational problems on our tracks?

    Then Steve, will you come back and tell them that streetcars are just fine conceptually and that they messed up again? According to what I’ve read recently on this board, track construction for the last 20 years was a disaster and so were the CLRVs.

    The problem here is that proven off-the-shelf vehicles won’t work on our tracks, so who are we to criticize and judge when the TTC decides to go 100% low floor? Any move they make at this point will be risky, so they may as well go for broke.

    And how much is it going to cost the TTC to switch to pantograph operation? Now that track reconstruction is finally starting to taper off, will we all have to suffer through endless years of overhead replacement and shuttle buses?

    There’s something very wrong with this whole picture.

    LikeLike

14. hmm – a lot of trivia here!

    Maybe you could clarify about the change in specifications. There is a report on the TTC website from Septembre 19 that says:

    “The proposed vehicle will likely be a 100% low floor vehicle for better passenger flow, increased passenger capacity compared with a partial low floor vehicle, improved accessibility, and reduced tripping hazard (at internal steps). Partial (at least 70%) low floor design, as in the case of vehicles employing conventional high floor end trucks, will be allowed for RFP submission. However, due to physical gradeability and adhesion limit constraints, and the desire not to have 4 sets of internal steps (to accommodate three high floor powered trucks), a partial low floor vehicle would require significant innovative design efforts to meet the specified performance requirements.”

    So is the recent change just to remove the partial low floor option that wasn’t being preferred anyway?

    Also curious, the report says:

    “6. The multi-articulated vehicle will have 3 trucks, with all trucks powered to meet gradeability and adhesion limit requirements. “

    How do you have a multi-articulated vehicle with only three trucks? How can you have three sections with three trucks?

    It’s interesting that the report says that a “two stage ramp” might be used – I assume for wheelchair access. This has not been mentioned anywhere.

    Steve: This spec seems to be a moving target, and I suspect that the bidders are as confused as you are.

    LikeLike

15. If you’re insane like Skoda then you can have a three-section vehicle with only TWO trucks! (The centre section is actually suspended in mid-air!!!)
    I think what was implied was the newer design for centre articulation where two less complex and shorter articulation joints are used around a very short centre-section little longer than the middle truck. A good illustration of this design would be the Boston Type-8 by Breda. Given the number of problems they’ve experienced with derailments with this design it doesn’t seem to be much of an improvement.

    What really drives me nuts with the apparent policy shift for the new TTC LRV is that they seem to have backed away from the strict technical requirements that had been called for to deal once and for all with long-standing existing issues within the current fleet. Also there seem to be a number of benefits they’ve associated with 100% low-floor that are in complete contradiction to what is actually achievable with such an arrangement. Someone is trying to turn a fantasy into a reality!

    For our new cars to work properly (or at all) the design needs to be formed around solid and unwavering performance specifications. The interior layout is going to have to follow and work around that – not the other way round!

    LikeLike

16. Steve said: As for the new cars, first off they will be even longer than ALRVs and so trains of them for city street operation are unlikely. For one thing, they won’t fit on the safety islands. The spec requires that they be able to handle grades such as the Bathurst Hill and the Harbourfront tunnel while pushing a disabled car.

    No argument for current routes. However, what about new routes as those listed for TC? Particularly in Eglinton’s underground portion, I think coupling could be invaluable to capacity management on that line (assuming TTC management is capable of managing such a line, given their 507-reincarnate performance of late). I think couplers should definately be a part of the new design, even though they will not have any real purpose for use in the existing network. We have to remember that these cars are, in theory, supposed to also be usable for the next-generation lines, and take those needs (which haven’t even been finalized yet) into consideration and leave the vehicle in a versatile condition to keep all options open when more detailed design takes place on TC routes. There is a bit of a shame in the timing for the streetcar bid. Ideally, one of the TC lines would already be in detailed design stages so that a better understanding of the needs for future lines in addition to the existing challenges of the current network could be communicated.

    LikeLike

17. Karl Junkin said, “We have to remember that these cars are, in theory, supposed to also be usable for the next-generation lines, and take those needs (which haven’t even been finalized yet) into consideration and leave the vehicle in a versatile condition to keep all options open when more detailed design takes place on TC routes.”

    Absolutely! I would expect that the Transit City routes should be planned for FOUR car potential, even if it may be years before that length is needed. If the ability to increase capacity by running trains of up to four cars is not provided for, LRT becomes a harder sell over implementing a full subway line.

    I can’t think of any corridor in the city that is not currently served by subway that the expense of building a subway can be justified by capacity needs for today or for an extremely long time in the future. On the other hand, many corridors in the city are very viable for LRT, perhaps with only single car operation at this time. Meeting growing demands is easily handled by extending train lengths. I would not consider going beyond four 90′ LRT cars simply because capacity needs beyond this are better met by alternate LRT routes (thus, subway capacity can be met with LRT for the same price as subway with the added bonuses that you don’t have to funnel everyone onto a single line, and alternate routes are available when – not if – but when some emergency shuts down a line).

    Calgary originally built its LRT system for three car operation and have found they will have to move to four, so all stations built since Shawnessy and are underway with extending others.

    Dallas is moving towards trains longer than two cars and were considering four. However, it was found that low floor needs are more economical (in both capital and operational costs) to add a low-floor third section to their existing fleet and order new cars of that configuration. The new “Super LRV” configuration is 124′ (37.7 m) long and three units will provide the same capacity as four of the old configuration (and is exactly the same length).

    LikeLike

18. Calvin said: I can’t think of any corridor in the city that is not currently served by subway that the expense of building a subway can be justified by capacity needs for today or for an extremely long time in the future.

    They said the same thing about the University subway, the Spadina subway, and the Bloor-Danforth subway, and look at those lines now.

    The University and Spadina subways didn’t even replace surface routes, and they are now well beyond what buses and streetcars can carry. Build it and they will come.

    Everyone looks at Sheppard as proof that new subway lines in this city are not viable, but they’re dead wrong. Sheppard was simply built in the wrong place.

    Eglinton Avenue, Queen St., and Don Mills would draw in enough people to support subway lines. Don’t look at their ridership numbers today.

    LikeLike

19. I have to agree with M. Briganti’s post. When you have a subway, the corridor is much bigger than when you have a surface route – because its fast and people will be more willing to get to it.

    My cousin who lives in Laval (the island north of Montreal) was saying that the new extension of the Metro into Laval is getting many more people riding that projected. He said that the whole Laval bus network was revamped and many new routes were added. There is much more service on the buses now.

    So a metro or subway isn’t just to replace what’s on the surface – it’s to make it so people can get around faster without using their cars.

    Steve: In some cases, a single subway line is exactly what is needed. However, this model does not fit everywhere. LRT has its place, and we shouldn’t design every proposal as a subway first.

    LikeLike

20. Re: “building a subway can be justified by capacity needs?”

    Well, I guess “justified by capacity needs” and “justified financially” is not always same thing. There may be two different reasons to opt for an LRT over subway:

    1) A corridor has healthy ridership, but will never reach subway level demand. Jane, Morningside / Malvern, and probably Waterfront West corridors belong to that group. For them, LRT is a natural choice.

    2) A corridor might reach a subway level demand within 5 to 20 years, but there is no money to build all desired subway lines. Then, it is either build LRT and risk overcrowding in future; or expect a subway, actually build nothing, and live with overcrowding both now and in future. This is the case for downtown – Don Mills, Eglinton, and Sheppard corridors. The Spadina – York U and Yonge – Richmond Hill rapid transit extentions could also be seen that way. In such cases, the choice is tough and either decision will meet critisism.

    Eglinton LRT should be OK because it can (hopefully) benefit from longer trains in its central undeground section, and also use Bloor subway as a backup (lay surface routes to encorage more commuters onto Bloor during rush hours). Sheppard will not reach subway level demand for quite a long time. The southern portion of downtown – Don Mills corridor is probably the greatest concern due to the huge downtown travel demand.

    LikeLike

21. @Michael:

    I agree with Morningside and WW never reaching subway level demand, but Jane would definately hit it – I think Don Mills (excluding the Pape Ave portion upto Eglinton (yes, I know Pape stops at O’Connor)) will never hit subway demand. Victoria Park has more potential in the long term than Don Mills does if looking at current development densities in the city today instead of only ridership figures. Lots of things both in and around the network affect ridership, and although ridership figures are a critical part of the puzzle, they are not the only piece.

    I can agree that Eglinton might be fine as an LRT for a long time, but only if other lines are built around it, mainly something of a DRL nature would ensure Eglinton’s long-term viability as an LRT, particularly with its full traffic segregation including no intersections in its central portion. Without something like a DRL available though, Eglinton is at an extremely high risk of overcrowding and so is the Yonge Line’s southern half. As I’ve repeatedly posted here, the additional Yonge-feeders that some TC routes will inevitably become, direct or indirect-via-Bloor, will cause a collapse south of Bloor, or even Eglinton if both Finch West and Eglinton LRTs debut without other subway lines to redistrute the loads. Both levels of politicians (provincial ones handing out capital funds without understand the chain-reaction consequences of the projects those funds are going towards, and the municipal ones, including commission councilors, who overlook chain-reaction effects in their planning practices and look at corridors in isolation instead of as a network and how the loads will redistrute and flow in such network revisions) are not thinking enough and ignoring senior TTC officials way too much (when a senior TTC official calls a subway extension project “horseshit” (the exact quote, don’t blame my language ;P), as was reported in the Globe in reference to the Spadina extension, they really should take this opinion very seriously, because this is someone who is far more informed about transit matters than any politician can dream of being). However, we live in a world where our transit network is misused and abused repeatedly for personal and political gain. This is why I keep insisting that the TTC get up to 100% cost-recovery and get the politicians out of the transit picture, even considering the problems that could follow, such as capital dollars becoming difficult to come by. It’d still be a big improvement over today’s situation.

    LikeLike

22. Sure, there are corridors that, on their own, will grow to the point where they will need subway levels of capacity in 10, 20, or maybe 50 years. My point is that for the same money, three or four parallel LRT lines could be built that would provide that same, and likely more, capacity with the added benefit that everyone will not be funnelled onto a single line.

    Not funnelling people onto a single line makes everyone’s transit more rapid in two ways. First, there is a shorter “non-rapid transit” trip to the rapid line, either by a feeder bus route or by personal automobile. Second, when a line has an emergency shutdown, parallel lines take up the slack.

    Neither subway nor LRT will provide a stop within a block of everybody’s home, but LRT offers the better chance to serve more people with a shorter door-to-station distance than subway ever will. We have to stop thinking so narrow-mindedly about single lines here and there and think more about the big picture of the whole network.

    LikeLike

23. The whole network requires a mix of LRT and HRT. This is why both past approaches and current approaches are flawed. In the past, the attitude was than any expansion be subway expansion or “rapid transit” expansion. Now with TC, the attitude is only LRT (this is presumably a “rapid transit” approach, but details are far too few to debate that now. If it is anything like St. Clair or Spadina or Harbourfront though, “rapid” is not the word (“reliable” would be, though)).

    The fact of the reality is that Toronto has appropriate applications for both. The question is about where to put which and how to get the best interaction between them. Toronto does not have a one-size-fits-all solution for its transit problems. As such, going with LRT only from here on is not going to give Toronto a good network (in the long term, it may be nice in the short term though). Likewise, going with all subways from here on is not going to give a good network either (the bigger problem here is sustainability of finances).

    The system we have today has a balance between HRT and LRT, even if it is not a perfect balance. That balance needs to be taken into consideration for the future network. Both have their place, and strategies for tackling the transit problems facing Toronto need to be armed with both of these weapons.

    The other critical part of network expansion is sequencing. Building what where when (or before x and after y). This is where TC is going to possibly screw up the most as it risks crushing the system in the downtown core.

    Steve: One major reason why Transit City is designed as an LRT network is this: Every time we have a debate about subways vs LRT, the reply always is that we should build just one or two more small extensions to the existing subway network. This chews up capital that might otherwise be spent on other projects, and it defers, possibly indefinitely, the day when we can actually demonstrate a meaningful LRT addition to the network. Moreover, as long we we plan routes on the assumption they might someday be subway lines (valid if we are building underground, but not if we’re on the surface), the choices of routes is constrained by subway engineering requirements.

    LikeLike

24. Hi Steve and Calvin:-

    The key in favour of your arguement Calvin is the word ‘network’. Not just a word, but a whole mind expansion of possibilities. When paralell lines of like equipment and operation (supposing infrastructure of non-revenue interconnecting track as the city system has is built into it) will allow emergency re-routings to occur, thus minimising as much as possible, passenger inconvenience. Hard to do with a single subway route and then paralelling LRTs.

    Of course, when the LRT does carry so heavy that it needs to be replaced by a heavier type of operation (contemporary subway), then some of the network will be lost, but the interim means a reliable, less costly network that can allow passenger choice, thus spreading out the demand on any given line. (Do I go north or south to go east?)

    Dennis

    Steve: In some, but not all, cases, the expansion option is not an HRT conversion, but the construction of a new LRT line serving the same general corridor. For example, Finch East or even Steeles would make a worthwhile addition to a Sheppard line (leaving aside the issue of the discontinuity at Don Mills Station).

    LikeLike

25. Calvin,

    You just did a 180 degree turn — it’s funny how the LRT advocates say no new corridor in Toronto will support a subway, but then backtrack and cite other reasons when I remind them about the history of the University-Spadina corridor. That corridor was entirely new and had no surface route, and look at the ridership on it now. BD is a success only because of the surface routes that feed it, so I can’t understand it when people here say Eglinton wouldn’t have the ridership to support a subway.

    There has been some recent talk about the province taking over the TTC and merging it with GO. This makes sense, because only the province has the financial resources to expand and fund the system. They certainly couldn’t do a worse job at running and funding the TTC than the City of Toronto.

    Adding new LRT lines to Toronto is a good idea, but I think we’re making a big planning mistake if we build LRT to the exclusion of everything else.

    Steve: Please see my remarks in a previous comment about LRT-oriented planning as opposed to subway-oriented planning. One should not preclude the other, but that’s an important two-way street. Planning only subways, or assuming that only a subway will “really do”, skews the process.

    I beg to differ on the University-Spadina subway line. The University line was an obvious future, if not immediate, success because the Yonge line south of Bloor is fed from three directions (north, east and west) and could not possibly handle the combined demand as the system grew. University also was intended to have integrated service with the Bloor line, but the TTC did a good job of screwing that up with ham-handed scheduling and operation.

    The Spadina line now carries reasonably well north of Bloor, although the St. Clair short-turn (planned to be extended to Glencairn sometime in the next few years) shows how much of the demand at Museum originates on the Bloor line. Loading is finally building up further north, but it has taken a very long time and is dependent on bus feeders just as on Bloor-Danforth.

    LikeLike

26. Calvin wrote:

    “Sure, there are corridors that, on their own, will grow to the point where they will need subway levels of capacity in 10, 20, or maybe 50 years.”

    Kevin’s comment:

    The only problem is that we will be going over peak oil in 2-4 years. Already, in the run-up to the peak, I see that oil prices just went over $90 per barrel. Of course, political instability that stops oil exports in any one of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia or Iran brings on an immediate oil crisis – and none of these countries is particularly stable.

    One advantage of LRT is that it can be installed and the vehicles built very quickly in a crisis situation. The fact that things drag on forever right now is largely due to government procedure, not technical limitations.

    I forsee the car culture coming to an end in at most four years. An Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia could end it overnight.

    So here is a good question for our local TTC commissioners: “If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia tomorrow, what is the TTC’s contingency plan to keep Toronto moving?”

    Why do I suspect that the answer is “there is none.” Steve, do you know of any contingency plan?

    Steve: Every agency of government, not just the TTC, buries its head in the sand on this question. The TTC has a hard enough time responding to ordinary ridership growth, let along implementing modest improvements to make the system more attractive.

    If there is an energy crunch, yes, we can build and operate surface routes faster than subways, but the lead time even for new buses is at least 18 months. The real issue an energy crisis would force is that the endless debate about transit priority on roads would end, and transit vehicles would have unencumbered use of their lanes in order to maximize their ability to move larger numbers of customers.

    LikeLike

27. To Karl Junkin:

    I agree that 100% cost-recovery, or at least full recovery of operating costs, would improve the quality of decision-making in TTC.

    I also agree that overcrowding the Yonge subway with “Yonge-feeders” is a major concern. And that concern seems underestimated by both Transit City and MoveOntario 2020 blueprints. I think it would be wise to trade the funding of Spadina – York U extension (building LRT instead of subway there) for DLR subway up to Bloor or perhaps even up to Eglinton.

    Not sure if Don Mills or Vic Park is the better rapid transit route, quite possibly Vic Park is. I am thinking more generally about the Downtown – North-East rapid transit corridor. If built, such link will be very popular mainly due to the commuters transferring from the east-west routes to downtown, and can likely achieve subway ridership levels.

    I do not see subway level demand achieved on Jane. Such level usually comes mostly from transferring commuters rather than from locals. But for downtown travelers from that area, Spadina subway is a more direct route than Jane. Southern sections of Jane are relatively quiet quarters and won’t attract a lot of rides. York U in the north is the only big trip generator and can attract quite a number of rides from the west end, but not enough to fill a subway line. (Even for the Spadina – York U subway that will connect to a much larger catchment area, modest ridership is expected in the northern section.)

    Steve: 100% cost recovery is one of those lovely theories, but actually achieving it means either that we have much higher fares, or that we stop running marginal services. Either of these is a recipe for destruction of the system and isolation of communities which through no fault of their own cannot generate enough transit demand to pay their way.

    The quality of decisions would not necessarily be improved because it would be focussed on short-term balnce-the-books exercises rather than long-term system development or any of the urban design and development goals which transit is supposed to support. For example, a break-even TTC would never have built the Sheppard subway because it cost more to operate (net) than the services it replaced, and likewise a Spadina York line would be laughed out of the room. These lines lose money, but they are built allegedly to improve transportation in the region. That’s an intangible.

    Now if you’re prepared to entertain fare-by-distance to make long-distance rapid transit operations viable, you will have to explain to all of the suburban politicians who funded the subway construction why their constituents have to pay much higher fares while those wild-eyed socialists downtown are given such cheap rides. That’s why we lost zone fares in 1972 and began our spiral into subsidized operations.

    I happen to agree with a single flat fare because it provides an attraction for the long-haul riders, the very ones we want to get out of their cars. That’s a cost, if you will, of having a vibrant downtown rather than one that disappeared 50 years ago under a network of expressway ramps. Unfortunately, the economic considerations that led, eventually, to the redevelopment of downtown as a booming residential area, and the benefit of having both TTC and GO networks in place of expressways, don’t appear on the transit systems’ books.

    LikeLike

28. To Calvin Henry-Cotnam:

    Your idea of building parallel LRT lines instead of subway should work very well for many medium-density areas. Finch and Sheppard can be an LRT pair (the existing Sheppard subway portion complicates things but does not make that impossible), perhaps Eglinton and Lawrence is another case (although the hypothetical Lawrence LRT would need substantially long underground sections).

    On the other hand, where the space is tight, demand is high, and the operation must be 100% underground, a subway will have a better capacity / cost ratio than several LRT lines – just the economy of scale. If a new tunnel is build downtown, it better be a full subway. (An alternative to consider seriously is the LRT link along the railway tracks, that would be cost-effective. But it is not clear whether CN, CP, and GO will endorse such link.)

    LikeLike

29. In response to the comments about a better balance of HRT and LRT, I have to agree. LRT is basically the future of rapid transit for Toronto, but we need some more (limited) subway expansion. I’ve posted a map of how I think Transit City should be better balanced at (http://tinyurl.com/2zcvbv). Apart from having added all light rail that has been recently discussed is that this map includes subways where they fit the official plan better than light rail. The most significant thing is that I’ve actually followed through with what the official plan requires, high speed, transfer free links between development hubs. Yes, this is more expensive, but it also leaves us with a system that will work for the next 50, rather than 15 years.

    Steve: I’m not sure that I would agree with your premise about “better balance”. What your map does show is the problem that a few more subway links always seem to be the recipe for plans, and we never quite get around to the LRT part of the network. Moreover, once we have finally built those few subways, there is pressure for just a few more.

    While I may be accused of short-sightedness, my attitude is that the only way to break this cycle is to stop presuming that we must build a few more subways and get on with planning an LRT network. Yes, there are links that may eventually need to be upgraded, but much of the proposed network is on the surface and it’s not as if we are throwing away billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.

    LikeLike

30. Re: % of cost recovery.

    Hi Steve,
    What you are saying makes a lot of sense, but you should agree the present funding / management formula is far from perfection. The modern, heavily subsidized, TTC makes less robust decisions (Sheppard subway, Spadina – York U) than those made by the mostly self-reliant TTC of the past (Yonge, Bloor subways).

    Well, perhaps TTC fares need to cover operating expenses only, while new capital projects should be funded by the city and province. Or, perhaps a targeted operating subsidy should also be given to TTC to serve small / isolated communities. But some business principles should be injected in the system, so that the amount of subsidy is determined by simple, clear rules that are somehow tied to performance.

    Also, the single flat fare system has its advantages, politically as well as technically (easier to collect), but bears a problem. With the rapid transit routes crossing Toronto borders, and transit ridership in 905 growing, there will be a push to have a single flat fare across all the GTA. The argument can be same as for outer 416: why should we pay higher fares when we contributed to the network expansion through our taxes. However, switching to the flat GTA fare will mean either a higher operating subsidy per ride (as the average flat-fare ride gets longer), or higher fares for everyone, including people traveling a short stretch in the Toronto core. It should be noted that many other big cities use a zoned fare system.

    Steve: In talking about a “robust” TTC decision-making process, you forget that it’s not the TTC who makes decisions about capital spending, it is City Council and Queen’s Park. These are as much political decisions as ones based on business sense, whatever that may mean.

    I will play devil’s advocate for a moment and observe that routes such as the York extension are claimed to be bringing better transportation and hence development, not to mention concentration (good for transit), to a part of the world that might otherwise evolve as miles of low density, malls and parking lots. Proponents of this line argue that these benefits, intangible though some of them may be, are an offsetting value against which the capital and ongoing operating subsidies must be measured.

    From my own point of view, the economics would work a lot better if we were planning an LRT network serving the northern 416 and southern 905, but that discussion has never been allowed to be on the table.

    As long as the transit system is viewed as a sinkhole into which money is wasted, rather than as a service and investment that improve mobility, reduce the need for multiple-car families and aid development in a more sustainable pattern, there will always be calls for a “businesslike” approach to transit funding and planning. The net result of this will be barely enough capital and operating dollars to provide what the “good businessmen” think that the folks who use transit (almost certainly not they, themselves) should get.

    LikeLike

31. Steve said: One major reason why Transit City is designed as an LRT network is this: Every time we have a debate about subways vs LRT, the reply always is that we should build just one or two more small extensions to the existing subway network.

    This is true, and I can see how this is a problem, although it did not stop Harbourfront, Spadina, and St.Clair from happening. The policy of “no new lines, extensions of existing lines only” is another grave flaw in the current policy. Taking an alternating approach to system expansion (term 1 be dedicated to LRt, term 2 be dedicated to subway, rinse, repeat) would perhaps pose the best argument, however, regardless of which “term” is in effect, an advance understanding of where interaction points between rail modes may be would still be necessary, so expansion of either should not be happening in isolation like it is right now. For example, is the York University subway station going to include an LRT loop in its initial construction for integrating with the Finch West line they say is coming? Probably not, I don’t have that much faith in the TTC’s planning department for that calibre of intelligence to be in play.

    Steve interjects: An LRT loop on York U lands would require either that the LRT run up Keele where roadspace is at a premium, or up through a mixture of privately-held lands soon to be developed and York U lands that the University does not want to give up. There was a huge fight just to get the land for the busway, and that only happened with the ironclad agreement that the land would be released once the subway opens.

    Steve said: Moreover, as long we we plan routes on the assumption they might someday be subway lines (valid if we are building underground, but not if we’re on the surface), the choices of routes is constrained by subway engineering requirements.

    Indeed. It’s Eglinton’s make-or-break as well. Regardless of which mode will be running on it first, if it is underground, it should be built to subway spec. This can be done in a manner that is not going to affect costs by unreasonable margins (I’m guessing maybe 15% mark-up or less if the tunnel cross-section is going to be the same anyway, 15% is very far from the 500% difference usually claimed between LRT and HRT, it is a whole different game when dealing with underground LRT, I admit though I’d need a civil engineer’s input on this, my field is architectural).

    The approach here is that you do not build some parts of the HRT infrastructure at the outset, but leave enough space for easy retro-fitting (for example, include keyways way sliding it third-rail supports, raised platforms, include rough-ins for HRT drainage systems at their respective platform heights without actually installing the plumbing, create high-ceiling stations so that no ceiling changes are needed when upgrading to HRT, service realignments such as sewers, that are going to happen regardless of mode, leave enough space for HRT length platforms, etc.). The long-term effect this would have would be greater than that realized with the Prince Edward Viaduct.

    Steve: A major issue with LRT versus subway and the costs claimed for both is that subway lines require larger, usually more complex stations and these are very expensive. I think that we can reasonably assume Eglinton would not require more than 4-car subway trains, and hence 300-foot long stations like Sheppard. However, there is a big problem with conversion if we start out with low-floor LRVs and want to convert to high-floor subway. The platform heights will all have to be changed and that cannot be done overnight. Indeed, it may be preferable to continue running trains of “LRVs” in a pure subway but with longer trains than might be reasonable for a surface route.

    By the way, some locations, notably Bayview and Eglinton, will be a nightmare for underground construction because this is an old swamp. There’s a reason that the corner is not surronded by high-rise buildings, and the developer who took over the old gas station on the SW corner found he had to go much deeper than planned to get on solid ground. A subway station here also has the problem that there is a steep grade up to the west that will almost certainly require deep bore tunnel for some distance to keep the grade at a level subway trains can handle.

    Of course, if we try to tear down the Sunnybrook Plaza on the NE corner, I am sure we will run into problems with the historically minded who will point out that this was the first strip mall in Toronto. As with so much of car-oriented development, it was built just outside of the old city limits in Leaside where politicians were friendlier to this type of thing.

    Steve said: 100% cost recovery is one of those lovely theories, but actually achieving it means either that we have much higher fares, or that we stop running marginal services. Either of these is a recipe for destruction of the system and isolation of communities which through no fault of their own cannot generate enough transit demand to pay their way.

    This is a current problem due to the way the network has grown in since 1970. Had the TTC stayed out of the red all along like it had upto and including 1970, the system would have gone down a much sounder path in its expansion. I agree, in the current situation we’ve got some options that could be very difficult to work with and unpleasant. However this problem is going to get worse if we don’t think about changing it. The sooner we change it, the better. Whether or not it is already impossible is debatable, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there are ways to slowly reverse the trend of increasing the subsidy. Nothing can happen until we at least get back upto mid-80s%.

    Steve: Decisions about how we build the suburbs were not under the TTC’s control. If councils want to approve endless acres of low-density development, the TTC is stuck trying to serve them. We have to stop thinking about the TTC and its finances as if they are magically independent of the city the network serves.

    Steve said: The quality of decisions would not necessarily be improved because it would be focussed on short-term balnce-the-books exercises rather than long-term system development or any of the urban design and development goals which transit is supposed to support. For example, a break-even TTC would never have built the Sheppard subway because it cost more to operate (net) than the services it replaced, and likewise a Spadina York line would be laughed out of the room. These lines lose money, but they are built allegedly to improve transportation in the region. That’s an intangible.

    Steve, excuse for a minute here, but you sound like you are supporting the construction of the Sheppard Subway now. The Spadina and Sheppard lines not having been built would be a blessing in disguise. It’d be a lot easier for the TTC to keep a better C:R without those two lines. We might have a DRL instead as well, it’d be far more likely to make money.

    I absolutely agree that urban design and related developments that relate to transit need to be in sync, but building loss-making routes need not take place for that to happen. What needs to happen is that the TTC break out of its narrow mandate and jump into the land-developers’ arena. This can be done by either the TTC creating a division for that itself, or, my preference, that the TTC form partnerships with existing respected developers and for a consortium of some sort. This way new subway lines come with density pre-built into the line on opening day… quite possibly with better access to stations than can be achieved when these happen in isolation like the often (but not always) do.

    I don’t have a problem with 100% cost recovery being regarded as “a theory”, in the situation we have today, it is an appropriate reference for it, but by the same token, that also applies to your statement of long-term system development and urban planning being ignored if the TTC kept balanced books – that’s just as much a thoery, too.

    Steve: In another comment, I advanced the devil’s argument that lines like Sheppard are “good” because of the development and improved travel abilities they bring to the region. However, I also happen to feel that a hard-nosed look would have revealed that a network of LRT lines would have provided better coverage and return for the investment. We were never allowed to make that comparison because the subway option was rammed down our throats complete with well-cooked estimates of future ridership to “justify” its construction.

    Steve said: Now if you’re prepared to entertain fare-by-distance to make long-distance rapid transit operations viable, you will have to explain to all of the suburban politicians who funded the subway construction why their constituents have to pay much higher fares while those wild-eyed socialists downtown are given such cheap rides. That’s why we lost zone fares in 1972 and began our spiral into subsidized operations.

    Just explain to them that if the downtown socialists were to travel up to their suburbs that they’d have to pay the same price for that distance. If they don’t like it, they should figure out a way to make their community a destination rather than a bedroom. It is bedroom communities that are a big part of the problems we have in our transportation patterns today. The distance fare is not complicated nor offensive to anyone with a healthy IQ, and with the proper approach in graphic design, can be explained very clearly virtually no language. If you want to throw in some IT into the mix to make this even more effective, you could include a list of what the price of gas for the same distance would be per 5kms or something – gives incentive right at the gate before they even have to pay a fare.

    As for politicians, in my opinion, if they are going to complain about fares, they better have an alternative viable buisness case to go with their complaints. Subsidies are not a viable business case. The essential problems is that politicians are idealists with no real understanding of how these things work. Why on earth should we let them make any decisions regarding these issues? They don’t know, as such, their opinions shouldn’t be considered seriously – even if they offer a lot of money for doing something stupid like obeying their demands, because we’ll lose more money in the long term (and that is something they wouldn’t care about because they won’t be in office in the long term, the number one reason why politics and transit should not mix).

    Steve said: Unfortunately, the economic considerations that led, eventually, to the redevelopment of downtown as a booming residential area, and the benefit of having both TTC and GO networks in place of expressways, don’t appear on the transit systems’ books.

    Actually, GO does make direct reference to these savings outside of their audits in their annual reports (re: expressways anyway, not the downtown residential boom) – except in place of dollar figures they use the unit of expressway lanes. As for the TTC’s books, its ridership figures and mode split do get cited, but like GO, these do not impact their audits.

    Steve: Normally I would not engage in such convoluted layout for a comment, but there was enough material here that it made the effort worthwhile. Also, I didn’t want a huge “but …” at the end. Thanks to Karl for advancing such an extensive set of counter-arguments although we may disagree in some measure on some areas.

    LikeLike

32. @ Michael:

    Sorry, splitting up the posts between my replies to Steve and you to avoid confusion.

    Michael said: And that concern seems underestimated by both Transit City and MoveOntario 2020 blueprints. I think it would be wise to trade the funding of Spadina – York U extension (building LRT instead of subway there) for DLR subway up to Bloor or perhaps even up to Eglinton.

    MoveOntario makes the overcapicty threat much worse. Offering to extend Yonge without a DRL is blatant ignorance on McGuinty’s part. It is funny how this is not cited as a priority for the TTC regardless of the fact that it is a profitable extension waiting to happen, there’s just no capacity to absorb it. A priority for the TTC should be to find a profitable alleviator for southern Yonge to allow for the also profitable Yonge extension.

    The Spadina extension can go to York U and be beneficial to the line. It should not be LRT from Downsview in my opinion, it will not help the line’s image, but taking to York U gives it a real destination besides Yorkdale.

    Any subway north of York U is nothing but absurdly asinine politics.

    Michael said: I am thinking more generally about the Downtown – North-East rapid transit corridor. If built, such link will be very popular mainly due to the commuters transferring from the east-west routes to downtown, and can likely achieve subway ridership levels.

    Feeders are an important part of any subway line in the network. Such a Rapid Transit Corridor might turn out to be another SRT though. The reason why I’d suggest a switch from Pape to Vic Park instead of going from Pape to Don Mills is for maximizing walk-in ridership – which ideally is the kind of ridership subway spawns as well as services in a high ratio against its feeders (although it wouldn’t ever be higher than its feeders in most cases other than the core, where they may not even be any feeders at some points).

    Steve: The argument for a Pape line (or something in the Greenwood/Donlands/Pape area) is that Don Mills would make a better north-south feeder than Victoria Park. It has many destinations in their own right unlike Victoria Park. Also, getting the line from Danforth to downtown is not as challenging as doing this at Vic Park.

    Michael said: I do not see subway level demand achieved on Jane. Such level usually comes mostly from transferring commuters rather than from locals. But for downtown travelers from that area, Spadina subway is a more direct route than Jane. Southern sections of Jane are relatively quiet quarters and won’t attract a lot of rides. York U in the north is the only big trip generator and can attract quite a number of rides from the west end, but not enough to fill a subway line.

    I didn’t mention it, my fault for incorrectly assuming it was obvious, but I’d envisage any Jane or other west-end subway as a continuation of a DRL (probably from Dundas West Station up to Dundas/Jane since the Bloor/Jane area is simply not physically feasable, and you’re right, the demand south of St.Clair is too low anyway). As an extension of a DRL, Jane’s attractiveness as a subway line jumps dramatically. Jane also already has, to some extent, nodal development along it. Here’s an image for reference, be warned, they’re several screens tall (around 700Kb) (includes turning alignment for subway routing in red at north and south tips): North of 401 and South of 401. This development is not enough on its own of course to sustain a subway line, but it is a head start in my opinion, and makes Jane’s case extremely strong compared to other candidates.

    Steve: I think that the real question is what happens in the Weston rail corridor. Obviously, that’s the connection any line would make with the Bloor subway at Dundas West, and the real question is whether there is any justification for building this route underground. My feeling is, no, there isn’t, and we could start providing good rapid transit service to the northwest a lot sooner if we would look at this corridor as LRT and give “Blue 22” a long overdue funeral.

    Does a Jane Line threaten the Spadina Line? Maybe a little, it depends. St.Clair West is unlikely to be affected, at the opposite end of the streetcar line servicing it, but Eglinton West, Wilson, and Downsview could see fewer rides. Yorkdale and Glencairn (because Glencairn’s ridership can’t get much lower), as well as Dupont, should be relatively unaffected. Even for those that see some drop in ridership, I doubt it would be much. Lawrence West actually has some good development in its area, but would be equally threatened by an all-day GO Train service along the Georgetown Line anyway. A lot of development around Bathurst among other areas should keep the others going reasonably well enough, except Downsview, which would be in dire need of some action around it – even when the Spadina Line is extended, that alone will see its figures drop significantly as it will no longer be a terminus.

    Steve: A gentle reminder. This is my site, and I have only so much time to spend editing long, complex comments.

    LikeLike

33. To Karl Junkin: your arguments are very interesting, particularly about Jane route sustainable as a subway if it a continuation of DLR.

    But then the financial realities come to the picture, it seems to me that we must implement the bulk of new Toronto network as LRTs, and can afford only a small amount of new subway kilometers. If so, then probably the first priority for subway is DLR, then perhaps Yonge North. For several other routes including Jane, Eglinton, Downsview – YorkU, it “would be nice” to have a subway, but since the LRT can do the job, LRT should be chosen so the funding is not drained away from other projects, in particular other LRT lines.

    Steve: the above does not suggest building subways before LRT chronologically.

    Steve: I understand your point and don’t disagree with it. Lines should be built in an order that makes sense for development of the network. Unfortunately, when money is in short supply, the subway advocates have managed to muscle out everything else when they should be told “come back later”.

    LikeLike

34. That’s fair enough that you only have so much time for this site. But I did not think my post was so out of line that you wouldn’t accept it. Maybe it was not on the topic – but I don’t see that most of what followed is on the topic of the CLRV.

    Steve: I beg your pardon. I just went back in the comments and found that yours had simply scrolled off the current list because so many were coming in. There was no intent to censor what you wrote.

    In your last comment in this thread, you were seeking clarification of some obvious inconsistencies in the spec. These were good points and I remarked that the bidders are probably as confused by what the TTC is asking for as you are. I really don’t know what the TTC is up to, and my intent was to suggest that they are simply making it difficult for bidders to respond properly.

    I am not a transit expert – I’m just trying to understand what’s being done here. My councillor said that things would work when we got the new cars – now it seems there is doubt about that. Maybe there are no new cars.

    You didn’t really answer my earlier post. I come here for answers – but I am not getting many. (In some bars I’ve been in, you would be in a hospital for responding to someone like you did to me. I don’t think you meant it that way, but some people are not as understanding.)

    Steve: Anyone who has been reading this site will know that I entertain a wide variety of opinions in the comments in the hope of getting a good discussion going. Yes, I have specific positions on some issues, and it’s my prerogative as “publican” to make them known.

    The remark about only having so much time for this site was not even aimed at you, and it was partly in jest given the work I did to dress up two comments by one rather prolific writer so that the various “voices” would be clear in the layout. This morning, I spent an hour editing and replying to comments that I had originally planned to use for finishing up the long-delayed work on analysis of the King Car so that I could turn to other routes using the same techniques with the King posts as a tutorial.

    Most business are small – but I don’t see business people being against transit if we see it working. Have you ever worked in a business????. But on St. Clair, sorry, but it is turning into a sinkhole – and one that is harming everyone in the community.

    My neighbour said he went to a meeting during the right of way discussion – and someone from the city said they expected many of the businesses on St. Clair to go – and they the street would be build up again. I did not believe him them – but now I’m thinking that he heard things correctly.

    I don’t think it would hurt if you wrote “I don’t know” or “I was wrong” once in a while.

    Steve: The remark you attribute to the city is correct, and it shows how badly a lot of the public participation was handled on that project. I have always supported the concept of a St. Clair ROW, but believe that the way the design and implementation were handled was an absolute disgrace. The comment about businesses is, technically, valid in the sense that during any period of, say, two years, some number of businesses will close even if nothing else happens. The question here is how many more will have closed by the time the St. Clair project is done, and how many will be harmed more than they might have been if the project had been handled better.

    One big complaint I have is that the construction of the final work is announced to begin next spring, but there have been no public meetings to review the design and, if need be, get it changed.

    As for ackowledging that I am fallible, it does happen, although not agreeing with someone is not the same thing as being wrong. Nobody forces anyone to read materials here, and I hope that the vigour of the comments my writing generates shows that this “pub” is working well as a place for people to exchange ideas.

    Finally, for the remark about winding up in hospital but for your understanding nature, consider yourself barred from this establishment.

    LikeLike

35. For a moment there I thought we’d become City Council! Lighten up folks and try reading things right. You’re a reasonable guy, Steve, and I’d happily share a drink with you any time!

    LikeLike

36. A number of comments were directed at things I said and, for the most part, Steve’s comments have covered the issues. There are a few that still need addressing…

    M. Briganti said I did a 180 degree turn, and I believe that it was in response to my commet, “Sure, there are corridors that, on their own, will grow to the point where they will need subway levels of capacity in 10, 20, or maybe 50 years.”

    This is not a 180 turn. My point was that a particular corridor (I was thinking of the subway to Vaughan and up Yonge north of Steeles in particular, but others apply) on its own might eventually see a growth to require the capacity of a full subway line. “On its own” meant that no other rapid transit option would be built parallel to such a line. Leaving us with the need for thousands of parking spaces for the commuters who will make up this demand in a decade or two.

    For about the same money, the same capacity could be built with three or four parallel LRT lines without the need for giant parking facilities along the single subway line. It would be nice to not need any parking, but as mentioned in other comments, reality is that there are people who will not take a bus to the rapid transit line. Distributing the capacity over several lines will not only distribute the parking needs, but will slightly reduce it since more people will be closer to a station. A tiny percentage more would be close enough to walk, and a small percentage who would drive to the subway line that was 6 km away would take a feeder bus to an LRT station that was about 2 km away.

    I am not advocating LRT to the exclusion of HRT forever and always. Each have their merits and disadvantages that need to be looked at carefully. However, the GTA has lagged far behind where it should be in transit development for far too long because of the mind set that “rapid transit is subway only”. The politics get in the way, and all we end up getting is a small extension here and there every once in a while.

    When I say “politics”, I am speaking of the politicians and their desire for self-promotion. New lines cost too much and take way too long – so much so that few politicians can get the photo ops for BOTH the ground breaking and the opening day ribbon cutting. So an extension here and an extension there comes along and improves transit for a small portion of the city. Even when it was decided to actually build the Sheppard line, they had to cut it back to the point that it is referred to the “stubway”. Talk about scaring off politicians from taking a chance on a new line.

    Getting back to LRT versus HRT, while I don’t write-off HRT (I actually support extending Yonge up to Steeles), I do feel it should be placed on the back burner for the next decade or two. Right now, we must play catch-up with serving the needs of all of the city, and the GTA. An important focus must be, how can we make the biggest improvement to the most people for the least cost in the least amount of time. There is no one solution that fits all, but in our current situation, LRT provides the best alternative for most situations.

    LikeLike

Comments are closed.