Correction Nov. 7, 2010: An error in the spreadsheet calculating the number of vehicles required for 501 Queen in 2020 (either Flexity streetcar or replacement bus) caused these numbers to be understated. I have replaced the spreadsheets and modified the text in the article where appropriate.
The election of Rob Ford as Mayor of Toronto brought deep concerns to many about the future of transit as witnessed in the comment threads elsewhere on this site. Much of this focussed on the existing streetcar network and the planned Transit City lines, but transit as a whole is a larger issue.
This article is not intended as the definitive defense of streetcars. Indeed, the whole idea of “defending” them starts from a negative perception. The challenge for those of us who see a future for streetcars and LRT is to advocate for them, for the role they can play in decades to come. We also have to be honest about the tradeoffs. No technology — buses, trolley buses, streetcars, LRT, subways, gondolas, dirigibles, even swan boats — is without its problems and limitations. Pretending that any one of them is “the answer” is hopelessly shortsighted regardless of which one you might prefer.
The election brought a great deal of what I will politely call bovine effluent to the debate on the transit system, and many vital issues were simply ignored. Nobody talked about fares, only about the technology to collect them. Rapid transit networks were conceived to fit within funding that candidates thought could be available, rather than starting with the question “what do we need” and then addressing the cost and implementation. Regional transit was ignored, except for occasional hopes that Metrolinx, that bastion of clear-headed thinking and far-reaching financial planning, would take at least part of the TTC off of our hands.
Transit City was the heart of much debate. Whether your platform was “more of the same” or “Miller’s plans must be garbage”, campaigns ignored the fact that transit is much more than Transit City.
One note about terminology: In this article, I will use the term “streetcar” to refer to the existing TTC system, including those lines operating in reserved lanes. The operating characteristics of Spadina and St. Clair, with single cars using pay-enter fare collection at closely-spaced stops, really is little more than an upgraded streetcar. I will use “LRT” for much of the Transit City network where:
- service will be provided by 30m cars in two or three car trains,
- all-door loading and proof-of-payment fare system will be standard,
- routes will be substantially or completely on private right-of-way with transit priority signalling, and
- stops will be more widely spaced than on the streetcar and bus networks.
We can haggle about definitions, and will always run up against the fuzzy boundary where a streetcar becomes an LRV. Indeed, the replacement of existing streetcars with new stock and a move to all door loading will address some of my “LRT” criteria above, but won’t change the basic fact that most routes spend most of their time dealing with traffic. Either they run in mixed traffic, or have substantial interference at intersections.
Please don’t clutter the comment thread with this sort of argument as the real issue is the appropriate use of the technology, whatever we call it. The name is important when trying to explain things to the public who have been ill-served by the deliberate fudging of the streetcar/LRT differences in the campaign.
As I write this, the political standing on streetcars and the Transit City LRT lines appears to be shifting.
- Mayor-elect Ford’s YouTube video talks about streetcars as a source of traffic congestion, but does not mention eliminating them from Toronto. They are portrayed as simply not the sort of thing we want in the suburbs, and a few subways would replace the much larger Transit City network.
- Ford’s campaign literature does talk about removing streetcars from some city streets, and this was later clarified to indicate the right-of-way lines (Spadina, Harbourfront, St. Clair) would survive at least for a time.
- Ford hopes to meet with Premier McGuinty and change the terms of the streetcar purchase, ideally to kill it. Whether this position could be mollified by the arrival of new transit funding from Queen’s Park remains to be seen.
- Councillor-elect Doug Ford (brother of the Mayor-elect) backpedalled on the streetcar issue and claimed that the idea that Ford would get rid of streetcars was an invention of the nasty lefties to scare their supporters. The fact that Ford’s own literature and statements by candidate Ford directly contradict this position makes one wonder how much the brothers Ford actually pay attention to each other.
- Recently, Councillor Karen Stintz, mooted as a new Chair for the TTC, made what I read as concilliatory statements about Transit City. She would prefer subways, but is not unalterably opposed to LRT. This is a change from her campaign stance where her representations of streetcars, LRT, especially where the latter is underground, and subways were either uninformed or “misleading” in the Parliamentary sense. As TTC Chair, she would have quite a learning curve.
As I write this, it is unclear what a Ford administration’s position on streetcars might be.
We often hear that buses would be faster than streetcars, but one need only compare bus routes on comparable streets with (usually) 4 lanes much like those where the Queen and King car run. Slow scheduled speeds are a function of the individual routes, the demands at stops, the street geometry and the traffic on those streets. It is ironic that the Queen car has a faster scheduled speed over its long route than the Dufferin bus.
Although Ford’s literature claims that the average speed of streetcars in only 17kmh, the speeds planned for Transit City routes start at 22kmh (Sheppard East, Finch, Eglinton East surface section) and go up from there to be comparable with subways in the tunnelled section of Eglinton (28-31km/h).
Estimating the number of vehicles needed to replace streetcar lines turns not just on vehicle capacity, but on whether buses could match or better the speed of streetcars. From historical evidence on Bay Street, buses were slower than the streetcars they replaced by a factor of about 10%. Even on short routes like Junction and Mt. Pleasant, the trolley buses, and later the buses, could not make the running times of the streetcars they replaced.
The streetcar network has a backlog of additional peak service requirements going back close to a decade. The TTC’s ability to add service is constrained by the combined effect of the decision to retire the last of the PCCs, service cuts of the mid-1990s, opening the 510 Spadina line in 1997 and the gradual decline in reliability of the CLRV/ALRV fleet.
Current schedules require 152 of 195 CLRVs, and 38 of 52 ALRVs. Spares are over 20%, a generous allowance for transit vehicles. If the TTC were able to attain a 15% spare factor (15 spares for every 100 in service), it could field 169 CLRVs and 45 ALRVs. Five additional CLRVs will be required in January 2011 when the 504 King route returns to Roncesvalles Avenue (4 cars), and service is improved on 511 Bathurst (1 car).
The order for 204 new streetcars will very substantially increase the capacity of the fleet. Taking a CLRV (the existing 4-axle cars) as a unit of “1”, an ALRV (two-section, six-axle cars) as a unit of “1.5”, the current fleet is equivalent to
195 (CLRVs) + 78 (equivalent of 52 ALRVs) = 273
The service actually on the street as of January 2011 will be
157 (CLRVs) + 57 (equivalent of 38 ALRVs) = 224
[Note: For the careful readers, the number of CLRVs here does not match the total shown on the TTC’s Service Summary. The reason is that there is an ongoing problem in this summary with the count of vehicles in service due to double-counting of cars that switch between routes during the AM peak. The numbers I use are taken from the count of cars assigned to each route.]
Riding continues to grow especially on the downtown routes which were not as badly affected by job losses of recent years, compounded by high density residential construction on King, and already underway on or near Queen. Both the King and Spadina routes are at the limit of service that can be operated in the AM peak without moving to longer cars or trains in the manner of services once seen on Bloor-Danforth and on Queen.
Over the past decade, it is not unreasonable to estimate a backlog of demand for the streetcar system of at least 15%. Growth in future years, if only it could be accommodated, is projected to run at 2-3%. Conservatively, that is at least 20% over the coming decade, and the combined effect would be about 40% allowing for compounding from 2001 to 2020 by which time the new fleet would all be delivered.
Applying this amount of growth across the board to every route gives an approximation of future fleet requirements. Note that this is only for purposes of illustration. Some routes will grow faster due to population shifts and new development, others will grow less quickly. The overall effect is the point of the exercise.
Route Projection To 2020 [501 Queen requirements in 2020 corrected]
Including spares, about 155 167 of the fleet of 204 new streetcars will be required to handle growth on the existing system to 2020, assuming service replacement on a capacity-for-capacity basis. In some cases, rather wide headways by streetcar route standards result, and this may require some additional cars so that waiting times do not come to dominate transit trips on these routes.
Other planned improvements include the eastern waterfront services on Queen’s Quay, Cherry and eventually into the Port Lands.
Line management on wider headways will be crucial to the success of the larger cars. The TTC has a long history of creative writing in explaining why it cannot better manage its service, and this really must be addressed. The single largest problem with service reliability is that cars are not dispatched at regular intervals from locations where control on departure times is practical.
Short turns on wide headways will produce unacceptably large gaps, and the TTC must move to a headway management philosophy rather than using short turns in an attempt to keep operators “on time”. This will require a complete rethink of operator work practices by the TTC and the ATU.
The view from 2020 is important because this is roughly the timeframe in which some pronouncements about the streetcar system would have us roll the last car into the barns and retire it to life as a chicken coop.
When the projections are converted to an equivalent bus operation, we can see the effect on headways and on fleet requirements. In this projection, I have used a replacement ratio of 2.5 buses for 1 Flexity streetcar on a capacity basis. A separate calculation adds a penalty of 10% for slower loading of a bus fleet to see the effect. This penalty assumes that headways would stay at the target level, but more buses would be used to handle the added running time.
[The following paragraph has been updated to reflect the correction to the number of vehicles required on 501 Queen in 2020.]
The peak vehicle requirement goes from 135 145 flexity cars to 336 363 buses, or to 370 399 buses if the 10% speed penalty is added. (Note that spare vehicles do not consume operators and are not included in these figures.) On some routes, the headway would become very short (55.8 buses per hour on King), while on others it can be argued that the bus headways would be more attractive because for short trips, a long wait for a vehicle can contribute considerably to travel times. Conversely, fewer transit vehicles per hour reduces the interference, such as it might be, with other road traffic. Other possibilities include articulated buses or trolleybuses. These are not straightforward tradeoffs.
[Again, this projection is to give a general idea of the combined effect of replacing streetcars with buses and accommodating reasonable expectations for riding growth. Other scenarios are possible including one where transit is starved of resources to make a bus plan fit within a larger political agenda.]
Finally, turning briefly to Transit City, Mayor-elect Ford argues that the TC network will doom people to take hours getting across the city. However, his Sheppard/BD subway loop plan leaves large areas without rapid transit notably the northeast and northwest quadrants of Toronto, not to mention the dense Eglinton crosstown corridor. People in these areas will still have to ride buses to reach the rapid transit network.
If we are going to seriously talk about additional subway building, this must address actual needs for travel, not merely be an exercise in recycling the monies presumed to be available from cancelling Transit City. If subways are to be “the answer”, then let us be honest about the scale of construction, and the cost both for building the network and operating it for decades to come.
As I said earlier, this is not intended to be the definitive article on the future of streetcars, and many other discussions will spring from points raised here and from the inevitable proposals at Council and at the TTC.
The future of transit, whatever it may be, requires well informed debate. This should be based on more than a desire to get the Queen car out of the Mayor-elect’s way as he drives to City Hall.
Steve Munro 
I think there is a still a great deal of bias in here – despite M. Briganti’s observation.
In terms of speed, when we have replacement buses on Queen, they seem to run faster than when there are streetcars. Comparing four lane roads at random in completely invalid. The streetcar routes – especially Queen have been given huge amounts of the available cycle time – especially during peak. At some intersections in The Beach, one can wait almost two minutes to be able to cross (legally) on foot. during peak. Parking enforcement are out in force at 4 pm towing parked cars off Queen.
Not that these are necessarily bad measures. The point is that not all things are kept equal.
Calculating vehicle equivalents only on size is invalid – unless you assume that smaller vehicles must run the full length of a route in the same proportion as in the very center of the route. Larger vehicles must be run to the end of the line to maintain a minimum headway – to make the service attractive to riders. However, this isn’t true of smaller vehicles.
You state – “Equally, subway advocates point at “city X” and say “why can’t Toronto have a network like that” without looking at how our cities differ from each other.” It is faulty parallelism to compare this the ‘selling’ done by LRT proponents. LRT advocates are saying that their technology can work here because it works elsewhere. Those who point out that Toronto has less subway/true rapid transit than comparable large urban areas are making a statement of fact. Asking why we can’t have comparable infrastructure is a valid question. On the other hand, comparing Toronto to cities such as Zurich (population about 400,000) not valid or useful.
LikeLike
Any discussion involving the downtown urban form ought to consider cycling and its increasing modal share. The Bixi bikeshare program is scheduled to launch Spring 2011.
I much prefer cycling with streetcars than buses in spite of the tracks as a hazard. The position (or possible positions) of a streetcar is 100% clear – just follow the rails. Buses do a good job of signalling but it’s still difficult to judge the timing of their movements.
More important is the traffic calming effect of a stopped streetcar. All vehicles stop, and it’s very easy for a bike to safely filter toward and even past a loading streetcar; technically this is illegal but realistically, 99% of cyclists treat Streetcar stop signs as yield signs. I’ve never seen this enforced.
I used to commute down Sherbourne and buses and cyclists get in each others’ way and slow down all road users. There aren’t that many of either. Now imagine College and Queen, both heavy cycling routes, with buses. It would be a nightmare. So far as I can tell (schematics are hard to find) TTC buses are 30 cm wider than the CLRV/Flexity. That may not sound like a lot, but my bike’s handlebars are just 43 cm wide. I’m comfortable riding between a streetcar and parked cars, but generally with buses this is not only dangerous, there’s often not enough space.
Toronto’s downtown is evolving into a vibrant, dense high-activity core. Walking, cycling, and transit trips need to be given priority. It baffles me that people deplore streetcars because they slow down motor vehicles and can’t maneuver in traffic, expecting their audience to swallow the implied assumption that these are undesirable effects everywhere all the time. What if we instead said “streetcars calm traffic and create predictable safe zones for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly at intersections, where most accidents happen.”
LikeLike
“Steve: If we are going to talk about taxpayers, then we must also talk about investment. All this gravy train crap plays to the idea that we can just stop spending money and all will be well. Don’t spend a penny on projects advocated by those latte sipping elites, or on anything that might actually improve the city. Just let me sit in my gated suburban enclave and pretend the rest of the world does not exist, except to lower my taxes. Sorry, but I refuse to engage in debate on the false premise that the only thing that counts is taxes. What we get for those taxes is equally important. How we build a better city, attract visitors, make Toronto a place people want to live and work, those are vital.”
The people worried about taxes are hardly pretending the rest of the world does not exist. They wake up every morning to articles about the growing deficit in Ontario and the accompanying rating cut, possible bankruptcies of California (aka the original progressive, green, taxing government), Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and I could go on. They have no way of knowing the true financial situation of their city, David Miller begged every level of government for hand outs each and every year he was in office citing the most dire financial circumstances possible even threatening to close the Sheppard Subway at one point. TD economists, the board of trade and Adam Giambrone in his exit letter have all written in detail of a large and growing structural deficit and yet all of a sudden like a bolt from the blue we have a surplus this year. There is good reason to put the onus on the people looking to spend billions to put forward a business case for this “investment”.
Steve: About 20% of the “surplus” this year was caused by the unexpected strength of TTC riding. Despite a fare increase, riding continues to grow to the point that the TTC will have almost $50-million more this year than expected. This behaviour has no historical precedent and if the TTC had budgeted on the assumption there would be no riding loss, Giambrone and Miller would have been accused of fudging the books. This is a one time surplus, not an ongoing saving that can become entrenched in future budgets.
Other improvements in the city’s financial position are due to one-time effects such as mild winter weather, and if we get a very bad winter, suddenly there will be a “deficit” that we might call the “Ford Winter”. That’s no more valid than attacking Giambrone for the TTC surplus. If anything, all of us who have fought to improve service quality are responsible for some of that surplus even in the face of calls from the right to cut back on transit spending.
Some of the surplus comes from programs to find permanent savings in City operating costs. The City is doing exactly what the budget cutters would have them do, but when they succeed, this is treated as a fault of the outgoing administration.
LikeLike
This is another unfortunate example of how LRT advocates undermine their own efforts.
The main reason for building Eglinton’s tunnel to subway spec instead of LRT spec is so that you don’t need to build another tunnel along a parallel corridor such as Lawrence (nevermind that Lawrence and Eglinton are 2km apart; not the same catchment area). An LRT along Lawrence would have to be underground roughly between Leslie and Bathurst (although it would probably peek outside briefly around Bayview due to geography in that area).
Furthermore (and arguably a bigger obstacle), an underground Lawrence LRT connection at Yonge would be extremely problematic; anybody that’s ever used Lawrence Station can probably guess why. The Lawrence Station bus terminal happens to already be underground! While the bus terminal runs directly under Yonge, it’s roughly centred on the Lawrence/Yonge intersection (interestingly, the subway platform proper is situated quite a bit north of Lawrence Ave itself).
That said, I could support a Lawrence West LRT from Lawrence West Station to a reasonable terminus somewhere in (or near) Etobicoke. Except through Weston Village (where Lawrence narrows with very steep grades near the Humber exist), such a Light Rail line would likely be possible along the surface.
LikeLike
Steve, it isn’t helpful when you characterize “the public” based on where they live or how many streetcars they ride or suggest that they don’t have as much right to an opinion on transit because they seldom venture into “the evil downtown”. I remember when I first moved to Etobicoke many years ago how you poked fun at me for becoming a part of the empty boring ‘burbs and that I was somehow less of a human being for doing so. As a transit advocate you would be more effective if you eased off on the rhetoric.
I like living in Etobicoke. When I work downtown or going to a concert or other event I use the subway or the GO. The only streetcar even close to me is the 501 Queen which I tried to use as an alternative to subway but soon found out what a pointless exercise that was. Otherwise there basically are no streetcars in Etobicoke and the only example is hopelessly overcrowded, slow and prone to dumping people out into the rain or snow drifts half way to their destination to make a short turn. In other words, just plain nasty. I don’t know if all the other parts of the city except the downtown core are much better off but I suspect not. I doubt most people outside of downtown Toronto even know the difference between buses and streetcars when they take them – yes, I know this is sacrilege but really are we such sinners for being more interested in where we are going than in how we get there?
I lived more than half of my life in downtown Toronto, didn’t have a car and used transit all the time before moving to Etobicoke. Now I use the subway and the GO and feel they are adequate for my needs. Yes I have a car and drive for shopping or personal use but I virtually never drive downtown. Oh, wait, not true, occasionally I drive my sister home in the evening after a visit. She has always lived downtown, near the subway, but she prefers to get a ride home and I’ve never insisted she must take public transit or else she is a traitor!
People outside of the downtown know that subways transport tons more people more efficiently than either streetcars or buses. And there are other things besides transit that need public dollars. Personally I would rather see more spent on the Waterfront, libraries, community centers, daycare, parks and a whole bunch of other things that don’t get much funding. I don’t agree with a lot of what Rob Ford says, but I don’t like having my opinion discounted just because I live in Etobicoke.
Steve: At no time have I ever suggested that people who live in Etobicoke count less than those in Toronto, and it’s not a question of how many streetcars one rides that grants special status to comment on transit. What I do object to is people in Etobicoke whose entire frame of reference is a car-oriented suburban culture trying to impose that view of the world on the much different parts of the city.
I believe that my position with respect to public transit and the suburbs is abundantly clear, and the characterization of it in this comment is entirely unjustified.
LikeLike
Steve:
It is so refreshing to read some intelligent commentary, compared to the opinionated, unthinking I see from Vancouver. I believe that you understand transportation basics and that enables a logical discussion. For example, Queen St in Toronto is more like a collector/distributor system than a typical line-haul system, with many stops and lower speeds.
Some thoughts: An LRV is a Light Rail Vehicle compared with Heavy Rail Vehicles. LRT is light rail transit for low to medium capacity systems The key to speed is private ROW and don’t forget about elevated vs underground, usually 50% less. capital cost Short trains means better headway, but higher operating costs unless operation is automatic, unattended. Spare trains in a well run system can be under 10%, but keep in mind “crash” cars for street-running.
Best Wishes
David
Steve: The issue with elevated construction is the effect it has on the neighbourhoods through which it runs. Vancouver’s Skytrain implementation had the advantage of running largely “cross country” where the el didn’t black out the street below except for one section through an industrial district. An el is not compatible with the City’s hopes for the Eglinton corridor’s redevelopment. As for a 10% spare ratio, I would love to see that, but the TTC has not managed that level of availability for over thirty years. I would regard claims of similar levels in other systems as suspect especially if the systems were relatively new and the vehicles had not aged to the point that major overhauls were needed, and things started to break more often.
There has been some talk here about Nimby effects related to cut-and-cover construction as well as to depressed but not covered implementations such as the Yonge line north of Rosedale, or the Spadina line without the expressway. As long as the “only acceptable” way to build a “subway” is to bury it in a tunnel, then it will always be expensive.
LRT does not necessarily refer to light axle loads, by the way, but to the fact that the infrastructure does not have to be as extensive as a fully grade-separated subway with large stations.
LikeLike
Steve: “If it is a subway extension, this will extend to and beyond Consumers and there will be the cost of a new station. As an LRT tunnel, it is shorter (because the line remains at grade until west of Consumers), the station expansion at Don Mills is not as extensive as what would be needed at Consumers, and the connection between the two routes for passengers is much simpler.”
For me the fact that a Consumers or VicPark subway/LRT interchange would be purpose built (and thus presumably better designed than ramming it into one of the subway platforms) is the win of a cross-404 extension.
LikeLike
Steve,
Your comments are very well thought out and I applaud you and sincerely hope the likes of Ford look at your comments. Some people have mentioned sacrificing the 502, I would argue that removal of ANY line would affect the whole. It would also be “the thin edge of the wedge” for further replacement. Instead, the Yuppies on Kingston road (and only a part of it) should be ignored and the line resume full time service, it is a great back up for Beaches side of the 501 to the city.
Steve: Removing the 502/503 would make for marginal savings because there are only about 4 streetcars on the unique part of the route during the peak period. They also provide supplementary service on Queen and King, although their ability to do so is hampered by scheduling, bad line management and the tendency of some operators to shadow a 501 so that they do no work at all. Oddly enough, if the TTC through-routed the 22A at all hours, they would probably run much better service on Kingston Road. The day normal 20 minute headway (scheduled, often with gaps) is a testimonial to how the TTC can kill riding by starving a line of service. There is better service on weekends and evenings than the middle of the day.
But for improving the 501, when I was living there, I talked to some of the management of how we improved on time running through the down town in Melbourne. In fact, this principle has been around for half a century and has, in recent years been expanded to all intersection with streetcars in the downtown core and some of the inner routes near the city. It has been the butt of jokes from out-of-towners but it really works and speeds up both motor vehicles and streetcar traffic, it’s called “hook turns” Here is the official site of “Vic Roads” the government body, followed by the wikipedia info on them. What surprised me is there are already example of it in the US.
These improve through flow of traffic and the streetcars. The response I got from TTC Management was “they would never allow that here” typical of the default answer, it can’t be done instead of, what can we do to make it happen!!
Keep up the great work Steve.
Greg
LikeLike
Steve said … “If anyone knows where this info sits in some sort of city or TTC report, please let us all know.”
It might be mentioned in the TTC’s annual report from 1963 at the Toronto Archives. And it might be mentioned here.
LikeLike
@Karl: Thank you for pointing that out. As I’ve said, I realise there are many more issues involved with simply building another LRT line, such as community support, etc.
With Transit City in its entirety, I would have thought that the catchment area for the Eglinton LRT would reach at least as far as Highway 401 in the west, therefore including Lawrence Avenue, assuming downtown-bound passengers living that far north would take a bus to transfer to the Eglinton LRT instead of bussing north to Finch LRT (no regard to other trips not downtown-bound though). Some subway advocates often say that the ridership of the proposed LRT lines, especially Eglinton, will eventually require and justify subway technology, but as was mentioned in this blog, much of the ridership on a subway line comes from feeder buses hauling passengers from several kilometres away. The idea I was trying to get at was that riders bound for the Eglinton LRT could be given a choice between the Eglinton and the Lawrence LRT.
And building the Eglinton LRT to “subway specs” would allow subway trains to run on existing infrastructure? Wouldn’t the surface sections need to be converted to grade-separated track as well?
Steve, I also wanted to ask you, where can I find information on operating costs for different TTC routes? Is it easy to determine the costs split between labour, energy consumption, maintenance, etc.?
Steve: This is an extraordinarily complex problem on which I have written before. Briefly, costs on routes come from factors that related to different variables.
Vehicle Hours: Operator wages and benefits. This can be affected by large-scale changes in system characteristics such as revisions to schedules and/or work rules that increase or decrease the ratio of non-productive time to actual driving time.
Vehicle Kilometres: Fuel (subject to issues related to route chacteristics) and some of the running maintenance costs that are a function of vehicle use.
Vehicles: Routine maintenance that is performed on a calendar cycle regardless of how much the vehicle is used.
Route Kilometres: This is mainly an infrastructure related component for rail modes and, to a smaller extent, for busways. It is a big component of subway infrastructure costs.
Stations: The operating cost of stations includes not only the fare collector, but many maintenance services and the basic costs of lighting, power, ventillation, etc.
Fixed: Certain overhead costs of the system (mainly overall system management) are independent of the amount of service or technology unless there is a very large scale change.
One cannot and must not use average costs from a collection of bus routes, say, and apply them to streetcar routes because the bus network tends to operate at a higher average speed, and with a different peak:offpeak service ratio. These differences alone cause the number of vehicle hours, kilometres and other factors to be different for the same length of route. The only valid comparison is to calculate what service would look like on a replacement basis taking into account the conditions on the line in question.
The TTC has factors for estimating the cost of service changes, but they are not quite this detailed nor are they published.
LikeLike
I can’t spell out a defense of streetcars and LRTs as eloquently or technically as Steve, but I can make one using one of the Internet fads of our time. Enjoy.
Why people voted for Rob Ford’s transit vision (satire)
LikeLike
I’m confused by what you mean by “existing” infrastructure in this context as nothing’s been built yet, but making Eglinton LRT subway spec is possible within the confines of the existing EA and can still be constructed with the same tunnel boring machines already on order. The biggest change involved is the vertical path designed for the tunnel boring machines to follow, plus some other changes in cut-and-cover areas (including stations, among other things). I specified that I was speaking only to the tunnel (generally between the Black Creek and Don Valleys). A subway spec would still be above grade when crossing Black Creek (both the creek itself and Black Creek Dr) and the Don Valley, it just wouldn’t be in the centre of the road, but beside the road (and not at the same elevation as the road, as that’s not possible/practical at subway spec).
LikeLike
Mimmo Briganti said, “I’m willing to give the TTC one more chance, but if Sheppard turns out to be only slightly better than St. Clair, then I think all the LRT advocates should run for cover.”
I have to concur with this. I have written before that Sheppard is the make-it-or-break-it of LRT in Toronto. With the exception of the portion west of Pharmacy, there will be no reduction of vehicle lanes that contribute cannon fodder for some anti-transit types, and even the lanes lost over that short section are currently somewhat bus-filled during heavy traffic times. The spacing of intersections help in the ability to have a decent form of transit-priority signalling. In a nutshell, Sheppard is perhaps one of the best places for median-operated LRT to work well. The TTC is being handed a showcase line on a gold platter that could have the rest of the city screaming, “We need that in our neighbourhood,” within a short time after opening. That said, the TTC could also fumble badly when it comes to operating it, not to mention any screw-ups that could occur during its construction. If that happens, as Mimmo said, “LRT advocates should run for cover.”
Mimmo Briganti also said, “As for Eglinton, I don’t see how it could ever be upgraded to a subway.”
I have had discussions (arguments) on that subject, and while I have been convinced that it is possible, I don’t expect it ever will. But that is okay, because I just don’t see it ever will be needed. Just because subway construction cannot be justified unless the ridership is at least 10k ppdph does not mean that LRT becomes useless at this level. In fact, there is a substantial overlap where subway is justified before LRT becomes inadequate. Eglinton running with three-car trains on a 90 second headway could easily accommodate 18k (conservatively assuming 150 passengers per vehicle). There are ways to push this even further, but the point is that with an initial passenger load of under 6k, there is a long way to go before this line will be “bursting at its seams” and should be converted to full subway, and I strongly suspect that we hopefully will have a more substantial network that will distribute that need well before that happens.
LikeLike
Steve said … “What I do object to is people in Etobicoke whose entire frame of reference is a car-oriented suburban culture trying to impose that view of the world on the much different parts of the city.”
And what about elitist uppity downtowners imposing their urban “streetcar only” view of the world on suburbanites? It goes both ways.
I’m living downtown now (Annex) and I have to say that it’s vastly overrated. There was a shooting at Central Tech. Recently, another one near Ossington (in broad daylight I might add), tagging all over the place in the laneways, and a homeless/seedy element that you never see in the suburbs. And, the houses down here and old and need constant work.
Sometimes I don’t think the tradeoff of living in a “vibrant” community is really worth it. That “vibrancy” includes an area where close to 40% of the population rents, and then we hear of bar patrons in the Annex puking and whizzing on the lawns of million dollar homes. Nice. So people here need to think about that the next time they slag the suburbs.
Steve: As you well know, I do not have a “streetcars only” view of the suburbs. If the subway advocates persist in asking for “subways or nothing”, they will get nothing, or very close to it. Transit will be yet another of those things we “can’t afford”. It should be noted that there is a lot of travel around downtown areas that does not involve the subway, and there would be more if only the TTC ran attractive, reliable service. We will never have a subway under all of the downtown streets, especially not with closely spaced stations. The basic question is how to provide good service to as many as possible, not one or two expensive vanity projects that leave huge areas of the city without service.
LikeLike
To Karl Junkin who commented on my post: “I think it is blanket comparisons to places like Zurich that have turned the City so off LRT.”
I’m not sure what this sentence means other than an implied “shut up”.
I was writing only about the existing streetcar system, not Transit City or any new LRT lines. That is why I only referred to “streetcars”.
I would argue that the streetcar system in Zurich in the early 70’s was very similar to the existing streetcar system in Toronto. I would also suggest that the residents of Zurich are generally very pleased with what has been done over the last decades to improve the system. Obviously Toronto is not Zurich. That does not mean that there are not lessons to be learned from a city that has gone from a very similar situation to Toronto’s to one that is very different. Wheels do not always have to be re-invented — especially when they turn out to run as well as those in Zurich.
My overall point remains that a relevant system that works really well can be used to influence technical people but als0, more importantly, the political generalists who, at the end of the day, will be the ones making overall decisions. “Defence” is not going to be enough. Great examples backed by significant policy work contribute to a positive “offence”.
I am only trying to be helpful here. 🙂
[Steve: I have merged two comments from the same author together here.]
Toronto and Zurich streetcar systems.
The population of the City of Zurich is roughly 375,000. The streetcar system serves the entire city.
The population of the old City of Toronto was roughly 650,000. The streetcar system serves a subset of that population.
Comparison of the two systems is appropriate. It could also be helpful. 🙂
LikeLike
The inner suburbs are not all leafy streets with nice middle class homes. The reality is that there are also areas such as Malvern, Jane & Finch and Thistletown that are mixed populations, but definitely include a significant segment of the less prosperous. These areas also have the sad distinction of being very poorly served by transit. Many residents of these communities have to undertake long and punishing commutes on overcrowded buses. Transit City is/was a significant first step towards providing some transit equity for those communities. It is not only unfair, but seriously off topic, to try and equate transit Transit City with some special self interest exhibited by “inner city elites”. This is hardly an original thought, but it needs to be reiterated again.
Whatever one’s views about car oriented communities and car inspired development, it does seem likely that the economic viability of suburban communities will be jeopardised as gasoline prices rise. Whether “peak oil” is truly upon us is open to debate, but the concept of cars each carrying 1.25 passengers cannot be sustained in the long run based on congestion issues and associated societal costs alone. Improved suburban transit is a necessary requirement for a successful future. It is not a question of any group (elite or otherwise) imposing an unwanted solution.
LikeLike
@Brian Williamson:
When I was google-mapping Zurich, I saw a lot in common with Gothenburg, Sweden, which has a great, extensive tram system – no metro. I see similarities in both built form and street layout. Population for Gothenburg is a little more than 500,000, and the metropolitan area is over 900,000. Zurich’s metropolitan area, meanwhile, is over 1 million. That metropolitan figure is critical for these comparisons, I think it should be noted.
Contrast that with Toronto’s population of 2.5+ million, and the GTA of about 6 million. There is an issue of population scale being out of sync in this comparison. A comparison between Gothenburg and Zurich would work great, but neither of those two work in a comparison with Toronto. It’s just a fundamentally different scale, by a factor of about 6.
Yes, I do find these Euro-comparisons to Toronto becoming a tired old song that doesn’t ring true, but while I will be brutally honest with you, I won’t be rude to you.
LikeLike
Haha! Very good, iSkyscraper.
LikeLike
Steve, my “downtown uppity” comment was a knock against the 20-something Urban Toronto condo LRTistas, not you. They seem to think that their downtown condo-shoebox lifestyle is superior to suburbia, and I’m trying to point out that downtown living is not all honky dory.
When you live in the suburbs, you’re accustomed to traversing large distances quickly, and downtown travel on a streetcar is a “raising your blood pressure” painfully slow experience — hence, the preference for subways and roads that are free of streetcars.
LikeLike
@Karl Junkin:
I’m reasonably familiar with the Toronto streetcar system having used it every day for many years. My first reaction on using the Zurich system about 10 years ago was “this feels like Toronto”. I quickly realized that, in fact, it was very different in performance. I went back into the policy decisions that had made it very different and thought that the tradeoffs that they had made would be very informative for both TTC and City officials and politicians. This difference was reinforced a few years later with an afternoon trying to use a clogged Spadina line in Toronto.
Obviously, Greater Toronto is larger in area and population than Greater Zurich. Planning discussions around new extended transportation corridors of whatever sort are going to be much more complex and difficult for Toronto. Zurich is not particularly relevant for this.
In a large metropolitan area, there are roles for regional rail, subway, light rail, rapid bus, local bus, etc. That wasn’t what I was addressing here. As before, I am writing only about the existing Toronto streetcar system in hopes of defending it from Rob Ford’s promise to get rid of it. One of the ways of defending it is for a critical mass of Torontonians to understand just how well it has been done in a relevant other system. Zurich is relevant in order of magnitude terms: population served, area served, and size of system (number of cars).
I am familiar with streetcar systems in many cities (Dusseldorf, Berlin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Prague, Melbourne, etc.) Zurich is the only system I am suggesting as particularly instructive.
“Finding Euro-comparisons to Toronto a tired old song that doesn’t ring true” sounds a lot like the TTC saying “That’s not the way we do it”.
There’s a big difference between google-mapping Zurich and actually using the Zurich streetcar system.
Not to sound like Marie Antoinette, let’s spend a day together riding around on the Zurich system. If, at the end of the day, you don’t say “WOW, Toronto has a lot to learn from this”, I’ll be disappointed but happy to provide dinner and drinks.
LikeLike
This is why I think this comparison falls apart. You cannot simply ignore the other modes of a transit system, nor its broader ridership pool. The streetcar system not only connects with the subway system at several points, but they’re also on the same fare. The streetcar system also connects with GO Transit services, including Union Station (among others), albeit on a different fare with no discount program (and, by extension, low levels of transfers between them).
The “area served” by the streetcar network in any geographic area cannot be taken in isolation, and that appears to be the context you are trying to frame from what I am reading in your comments. The streetcar network is not restricted only to the population within its geographic area, especially when it is also linked to other services such as subways on the same fare. As well, I wouldn’t use the number of cars alone to measure the size of a system, but would also include the capacity of each car, and the double-track-km in the system. Otherwise, the comparison becomes abstract.
You’re stating the obvious; that’s why I brought up the Gothenburg system – I have ridden that system extensively, and am familiar with its ins and outs. Apart from some routes’ headways, it’s a fantastic system. I don’t find Gothenburg comparable to Toronto though, and given the similarities I find between Zurich and Gothenburg that I can observe without going to Zurich personally, I am saying that Zurich is simply not comparable to Toronto either. Zurich is therefore not instructive from my perspective. This does not mean Zurich doesn’t have a great system; I just think the differences between it and Toronto are very substantial, and thus there are major impediments to importing practices.
Whatever solution is going to be put forward for Toronto has to be tailored for Toronto’s built-form. In order to do that, understanding the built-form in any city being used in a comparison, along with the traffic patterns/uses related to it, and how it differs from Toronto’s, is critical. Without that, it’s a setup for failure.
As far as the prospect of getting rid of streetcars is concerned, expressions have been published in the media that even right-of-centre Councillors aren’t on board with that idea. I think that numbers, and the interpretation of those numbers in terms of congestion impacts and financial impacts, make a very strong case. I don’t think pointing to other jurisdictions holds much sway when it’s the local impacts that will be of the highest concern when votes are cast.
LikeLike
@ W.K. Lis: LOL. Obviously, the “intersection” of Parkside and The Queensway is a fairly unique situation for transit in Toronto. To the best of my knowledge, there won’t be any similar constructions required for an Eglinton LRT.
LikeLike
I first found this website when I became involved in the Ashbridges Bay Streetcar Facility “consultation” – which proved to be a very eye-opening experience – and then the BD second-exit initiatives (it would nice if you could post an update on that for your readers btw).
Steve has proven himself to be a generally open-minded and reasonable person. However, I find the whole discussion on this thread to be somewhat frustrating, and I believe it is partly (and I intend no offence here) because Steve is largely ‘preaching to the choir’. I notice quite a few of the posters here are of very similar mindsets, and there is often open derision and approbation for posters with other opinions. I think that’s really unfortunate, because Toronto needs some vigorous discussion around transit centred on real issues of importance to the entire city, by ALL the citizens of this city as well as non-residents who use the TTC. If we put everyone’s needs and opinions on the table – equally – we just might find there are more similarities than differences. We might also find that the somewhat artificial divide between urban and suburban, streetcar vs. subway vs. bus, will fade into the background if we instead concentrate on everyone’s transit needs.
One of the tendencies of the “choir” on this website that I find problematic is the sometimes George Bush style (you’re either with us or against us) assertion that, despite evidence to the contrary, all streetcar riders want to keep them, and only car drivers are opposed. The truth is much more nuanced, and frankly apparent, than that. For instance, here in Beaches/East York Ward 32 – where constituents would not consider themselves to be suburban – there were two transit issues very hotly discussed (there was no actual debate because there was overwhelming consensus in both the candidates debates and at the door within the Beach “triangle”):
1) the Ashbridges Bay LRV facility was almost universally opposed by the community,
2) overwhelming support to change the 143 Express into a regular fare route with more frequent service (there was also mention of support for a similar solution on Kingston Rd).
I would hardly call either of those items a ringing endorsement in support of streetcars by those who ride them. (And I would appreciate if all of those posters ready to reply with snide comments about “yuppies” etc… would keep their personal attacks to themselves and instead concentrate on the issues at hand, which should include my right to decent transit as much as theirs.) I notice that quite a few posters from the west end of the 501 hold similar opinions to those in the Beach. And I have great sympathy for those in the far suburbs who seem to get very little air-time in the overall discussion of how transit should work, or how it affects their communities. I think we do ourselves a disservice by making this discussion one of pro/anti streetcar, instead of asking ourselves *where* and under what conditions are streetcars/subways/buses/LRV/LRT appropriate (where do they fit synergistically within the communities through which they run), and where and under what conditions are they inappropriate. I was a supporter of streetcars, until I was forced to use them by those decision-makers in the downtown core who don’t seem to care much about whether those at the ends of the lines are inconvenienced or not.
So, while I’ve taken a generally ‘anti-streetcar’ stance of late I’m not actually anti-streetcar. I *am* anti-streetcar in certain situations: Queen St. East of Woodbine being one of them. Those who are blindly pro-streetcar would be advised to take a walk past 1982 Queen St. East – the former location of a popular restaurant that burned down during the streetcar track replacement in 2005 (fire trucks had problems accessing the site due to track work) that has yet to be rebuilt 5 years later. It’s not available on-line, but the Beach Metro did a controversial front page story which was a photospread showing all the papered-over businesses that went bankrupt during that time. It would be one thing to say that this is a hugely unfortunate but necessary expense which would produce long-lasting benefit for the impacted community. But the feedback during this last election would indicate that it didn’t. Streetcars in certain situations provide a real benefit. But those supporters who, to preserve streetcars in places where they are of benefit, force their use on those communities where they aren’t and treat honest attempts to discuss the pros/cons with derision, run the risk of the democratic process swinging the pendulum the other way by forcing those votes (and voices) to universally oppose streetcars as the only way to oppose them within their own communities.
I think it would be instructive for the City to provide an open forum for transit discussion and idea-building, and start by inviting each of the new councillors (and, for that matter, all candidates) to provide a ward-by-ward breakdown of the transit issues that were identified in the election. That would be a quick way to identify the transit “pain-points” in each community. Until we’ve done that, and have created a generally accepted (which means city-wide) measurable definition of a “good” transit system – which includes a reasonable discussion of where streetcars are and are not appropriate – all else is largely ineffective and needlessly divisive (sorry if this term offends, but I think it fits here) intellectual wanking.
Steve: The issue with Ashbridges Bay is the location of the facility including its effect on Leslie Street and on land now viewed as open space by the community. This was not an anti-streetcar position, but the streetcars get sideswiped because the TTC does such a transparently bad job of skewing how they present their case. The idea of importing a Canada Post spokesman who didn’t even know how his own plant was laid out relative to alternative access proposals shows just how bad things can get. All that said, the carhouse has to go someplace, and some street between Queen and Lake Shore is likely to be the access route.
Support for the 143 is understandable given the way the TTC operates the Queen car. TTC management (or mismanagement) has created a whole generation for whom streetcars equal bad service. However, the 143 (and its western counterpart) only address the symptom, not the basic problem. Why, for example, does the TTC get away with running the 502 every 20 minutes (even assuming it is on time and reaches both McCaul Loop to the west and Bingham to the east) during the daytime, but runs the 22A every 10 minutes or better? The 502 has low ridership because you need a search party to find the cars.
Out in Etobicoke, a community group has been trying to get the TTC to restructure the streetcar service for quite some time, and I have been active with this fight. TTC staff are absolutely intransigent that they will not revise the structure of the 501 and every chance they get, they misrepresent the options and downplay the possibilities of alternatives they didn’t think of. The locals have not been helped in their effort by their Councillor (Grimes). Speaking of Councillors, I cannot help mentioning that about-to-be-ex Councillor Bussin gave me no credit for all the work I did documenting problems with the Queen car, but that’s ok. I am still here, and she isn’t.
Streetcar track construction is going to occur from time to time, as is watermain work such as that which closed much of Roncesvalles last summer. The problem is to get the various utilities to take seriously the need to get in and get out quickly and co-ordinate their work. This was a huge problem on St. Clair. By contrast, the track and paving work on Ronces (which I have documented here at length) this summer went amazingly quickly. Yes, some borderline business were affected (mainly in 2009) and I’m not going to downplay that beyond saying that roads and sidewalks are torn up for reasons other than streetcars.
As for transit pain points, it will be important to sift those that relate to TTC operations and management generally (there are lots of screwed up bus routes too) from those that are attributed to streetcars because that’s what happens to be on the street in question.
Finally, the choir here tends to be supportive because too many of the anti-streetcar folks don’t bother posting on my site. The trolls for who personal insults and superficial analysis of issues constitute “debate” don’t get their posts past my filtering. They are the intellectual wankers of the bus and subway crowd, and they have a home elsewhere on the net where they can babble to each other and insult me mostly in absentia.
LikeLike
Anne said: “Those who are blindly pro-streetcar would be advised to take a walk past 1982 Queen St. East – the former location of a popular restaurant that burned down during the streetcar track replacement in 2005 (fire trucks had problems accessing the site due to track work) that has yet to be rebuilt 5 years later.”
I really wish you hadn’t brought up the 7th Wave fire in that way because you paint it as though the streetcar construction was the only reason why it had to be torn down after the fire when it was only part of the reason.
I say that because you left out the other three contributing factors: The fact that it started in an abandoned building behind the Starbucks resulting in a low chance of it being caught before it became a major fire. Next, the phone lines were dead which forced the owner to run to the fire station at Woodbine giving the fire more time to spread. Finally, the age of the building which resulted in it being constructed under different building codes than the Starbucks next door resulting in the Starbucks surviving while the 7th Wave did not.
Really, it’s this kind of skipping over important facts that does a major disservice to both sides of the streetcar debate and results in the mess we have today.
LikeLike
Anne — the LRT proponents here don’t want you to read this …
TTC Report on Queen Car Operations, January 2010
The report pretty much says it all. Streetcars don’t (and never can) work effectively on Queen, not with the traffic level downtown today. The lightrailistas still think it’s Queen St., 1970.
Steve: I do not agree that the report supports the conclusions you reach. Without going into a critique of how the TTC manages service, and the degree to which operators and supervisors actively attempted to sabotage the split route operation, all this report demonstrates is the difficulty of managing an extremely long line, and the need to decouple the operator schedules from the vehicle schedules. The constant “fix” of making running times longer and longer only leads to queues of vehicles at the terminals where they often are quite early. This is a waste of manpower and infrastructure. Imagine if the subway had built in 10-minute layovers for every train?
LikeLike
Anne said: “overwhelming support to change the 143 Express into a regular fare route with more frequent service (there was also mention of support for a similar solution on Kingston Rd).”
I’m not exactly sure what is being proposed here. Are you saying the 143 Express route should be changed to a regular bus route with typical stop spacing all the way to Yonge? That would essentially amount to replacing the 501 entirely. I fail to see how buses along Queen East would be significantly faster given the streetscape (frequent traffic signals, tons of on-street parking, waiting behind turning vehicles who in turn are waiting for pedestrians to cross).
Or are you asking for the 143 to become like a Rocket, with a few stops in the Beaches, then on to Downtown, blasting through Leslieville, Riverdale, etc. while those residents are consigned to the streetcar. If that’s the case, then I would have an issue with what would be tantamount to “two-tier” transit service. How soon before the people who use the Avenue Road, Mount Pleasant, and Humber Bay Express services demand the same thing? If they become regular fare services, how do we propose the TTC cover the revenue loss plus the increased costs for equipment and manpower?
I’m all for your proposal for community feedback about transit concerns, but part of that has to be an open discussion on how to pay for it. Some people who advocate for streetcars and LRT might do it for reasons of nostalgia or personal preference, but I am sure that people like our host do it because they sincerely believe it is the most cost-effective way of improving transit services to the widest number of communities possible. I’d love to criss-cross the city on a subway like I could in New York, Hong Kong or Paris, but the people advocating for it, mayoral candidates or otherwise, have yet to demonstrate to me that they have a rational, politically-feasible way to pay for it. Taxes and tolls are anathema to the majority of suburbanites who want them, so they fall back on concepts like air rights, P3 proposals and the like without solid research to back it up.
Steve: There was a proposal to make some of the premium fare services regular fare (only those paralleling the Yonge subway) in the 2010 budget, but it was dropped for lack of funding.
LikeLike
Another point of view.
My problem with transit in Toronto is CARS.
Mainly on north/south roads. Spadina/Avenue, Yonge, Bayview and Leslie, no where near any streetcars. Too many cars , too many couriers parked in the right hand lane and too many bicyclists riding up Yonge Street south of St Clair in rush hour running Stop Signs and Traffic Lights.
The same problem exists driving East/West where, again, there are no streetcars, i.e. 401, Gardiner, Bloor, Eglinton, Lawrence.
I drive through the centre of the City, where there are streetcars, every day and I have routines to deal with traffic problems and with streetcars when they are a real issue.
Have you ever been in the Concord Area on Hwy 7 around Hwy 400 at rush hour?
The problem is not a Central Toronto problem, so what is the solution North of St. Clair? Widen the roadways?
As per the City of Toronto web site there are some 5000 km (+) of roads in Metro Toronto. Say 1200 km /- of arterial roads. Streetcars lines 100 km +/-.
I am just trying to make a point.
LikeLike
Note for Karl: there’s only one real difference between Toronto’s streetcar system/GO transit and that of Zürich’s streetcar system and the electrified S-bahn. Simply put, their’s are extremely well managed and theirs work. As of course does Gothenburg, where we are in complete agreement after several visits (although they have no S-bahn).
LikeLike
I agree with whoever suggested that the 143 become a regular-fare, all-day service, and that something similar be done for Kingston Road (at least during rush hour); even when the Queen car is running properly it is excruciatingly slow to ride it all the way from the Beaches to downtown. Clearly a bus has the advantage of running along Lakeshore East which is relatively fast even during peak times. The same would be true for the 145 on Lakeshore West if not for heavy congestion on Gardiner/Lakeshore; given this though the best solution is probably splitting the 501 combined with more trains on the Lakeshore GO line and a new GO station at Humber Loop. Clearly though the downtown core needs streetcars for their high capacity, I think we should seriously consider whether the extremities of the network are best served by bus, revised streetcar service, GO train or some combination of the above.
Steve: The more general problem here is that most parts of the city do not have a handy parallel and comparatively uncongested route into downtown. We need to address the problems of service quality on routes throughout the system (bus and streetcar).
LikeLike
Anne said: I think that’s really unfortunate, because Toronto needs some vigorous discussion around transit centred on real issues of importance to the entire city, by ALL the citizens of this city as well as non-residents who use the TTC.
About all we have had over the past several years is talk. Meanwhile, the city grew and congestion, commute times, and dissatisfaction increased. Less talk, more action, is what’s needed at this point.
LikeLike
Anne writes ” … here in Beaches/East York Ward 32 … the Ashbridges Bay LRV facility was almost universally opposed by the community”
I’m calling BS on this one. I’m in Ward 32, and I haven’t heard much complaining about building the LRV facility. I’m sure there are some … particularly on Leslie … but the general stuff I’ve heard is … so what … good jobs … vacant land … can’t we build it sooner?
The alternative to that LRV yard is more big box stuff on that corner. I have a hard time wondering why anyone wouldn’t be thrilled about such good employement, except perhaps a few who might live very close to Leslie. Do we want more minimum wage Canadian Tire jobs?
Steve: It would be amusing to see the response if the TTC said it would bus the streetcars in the Beach, but would have to put the new garage at Ashbridge.
LikeLike
Andrew says “I agree with whoever suggested that the 143 become a regular-fare, all-day service, and that something similar be done for Kingston Road (at least during rush hour); even when the Queen car is running properly it is excruciatingly slow to ride it all the way from the Beaches to downtown. Clearly a bus has the advantage of running along Lakeshore East which is relatively fast even during peak times.”
Clearly such an arrangement has the serious disadvantage of not serving any stops between Woodbine or Coxwell and its downtown loop. What portion of the ridership rides to intermediate destinations, such as Leslieville, Broadview, etc?
Also, what people ask for, and what actually works, are two different things. There was (apparently) lots of enthusiasm for an express bus from the west end. I was at workshops where people said “yeah!!” when an express bus was mooted. The councillor, who is not famous for having a user’s view of the transit system, backed the express and we got the 145.
Alas, with a peak loading of about six passengers on just about every 145 I’ve seen in operation, it’s a failure that continues to run only because of the councillor leaning on the TTC. All that enthusiasm for an express bus? Talk is cheap.
(I have a bad attitude to those people who say, “The Queen car is so bad, I don’t ride it”, and then come up with ideas that — in theory — would get them back riding the car. My skeptical point of view is, 95% of them won’t be back if their idea was implemented. There will always be another excuse not to ride, while doing one’s civic and environmental duty by ‘supporting’ public transit.)
“The same would be true for the 145 on Lakeshore West if not for heavy congestion on Gardiner/Lakeshore; given this though the best solution is probably splitting the 501 combined with more trains on the Lakeshore GO line and a new GO station at Humber Loop.”
Now, I don’t know that much about the Beach ridership, but I have taken the streetcar from Long Branch loop to downtown lots of times in the past year, probably a hundred times. The streetcar is ten times as popular with riders as the Humber Bay express bus, which should tell you something. Make the express bus regular fare, and maybe that margin would drop to five-to-one. However, I’m not terribly convinced that it’s simply the extra fare that discourages ridership on the bus, as the GO trains carry way more people to and from the lakeshore stops as does the bus, and the GO train is also a premium fare (plus has inconveniently fewer stops).
In addition, I can tell you that in the west end, many people ride through from Lake Shore Blvd., not only to Roncesvalles, but Dufferin, Bathurst, and Spadina, and many of the minor stops in between. An express to the downtown core would be of no benefit to them. “Transfer at Roncesvalles” isn’t the answer, even if the express bus routing allowed that, because the bus isn’t a whole lot faster west of Roncesvalles, and the streetcar isn’t exactly quick through Parkdale. There would be no advantage to the majority of current west-end Queen car riders to extend the express bus service. The failure of the 145 demonstrates that I think.
LikeLike
As I’ve mentioned before, I think the 14x premium is unduly punitive – only about 30-40% for Metropass holders but 80-100% for cash/token holders. If TTC can’t afford to abolish the premium, they could at least make it a lower premium, such as $1 plus cash/token.
LikeLike
@Anne – if the echo chamber here is bothersome, I (sincerely) advise you to consider getting involved in resurrecting the corpse of Metronauts.
LikeLike
@Mark Dowling – interesting site. Thanks for the reference.
@Mimo – ditto – and thanks to you too.
@nfitz and Nick L – You suggest that I am using semantics to skew the discussion. I’m not, but it’s a fair point to discuss. @Nick L. – I’ll concede your points. However, even when they are added to my post above you will still find that the streetcar track replacement was ONE of the factors (and if you happened to be one of those people who were trying to get anywhere on Queen St. that night, and witnessing the very frightening mad chaos of fire trucks that couldn’t get near the site due to streetcar track construction you might be forgiven for thinking it was a large factor). However, I note that you neglected to address my following point, which was the Beach Metro coverage of all the businesses that went bust during that time. While we’re at it, I think we should add that this situation was exactly what the neighbourhood feared – particularly in light of the fire hydrants along Queen St. that were turned off and covered during track construction. Not to mention the lack of response to residents to their enquiries as to when said fire hydrants would be reconnected after those sections of track work were finished.
@nfitz – You wrote: “Anne writes ” … here in Beaches/East York Ward 32 … the Ashbridges Bay LRV facility was almost universally opposed by the community” …
I’m calling BS on this one. I’m in Ward 32, and I haven’t heard much complaining about building the LRV facility.”
I notice that you chose to take my quote out of context. My point was referring to the Ward 32 candidates debates and door-to-door canvassing. I’ll concede that I could have been clearer. However, you obviously didn’t attend either of the Ward 32 candidates debates, where the AB facility was by far the hottest item in the second debate, and about neck and neck with Tuggs at the first. It was indeed “hotly discussed” – with all councillors (except the soon-to-be-former Ms. Bussin) opposed. That “almost universally opposed by the community” quote was taken verbatim from one of the debate questions/comments from the audience, which was repeated by at least two candidates (according to my notes from the debates). Which would tend to substantiate that they were indeed hearing “almost” universal opposition from the community at the door.
@Steve I’m sure our new councillor will be much more more willing to give credit where it’s due. Your point about streetcars getting sideswiped by the AB facility is another fair point. However, I know of a large number of people who supported RF (who aren’t ‘natural’ RF supporters) as the only way they could find to oppose that facility – which is what prompted me to write this post. Years of bad decision-making and heavy-handedness by the TTC has unnecessarily turned many streetcar riders and supporters into opponents.
LikeLike
@Ed – generally speaking, over the last 18 years, (my ‘home’ stop is Neville Loop), the AM 501’s are full by Woodbine and the 143 express buses are also pretty packed by Woodbine. That’s not to say there isn’t the odd 501 or 143 that has a lot of room, but on the whole, during the heavy part of the AM rush, standing room by Woodbine for sure for both routes.
The east 501 portion is different than the west half in that ‘most’ people get on the WB 501’s wherever, and the majority stay on all the way downtown. Cox, Greenwood, Jones, Pape, Carlaw, Logan, Broadview etc..there’s nothing really there as a destination so most folks go right to Yonge.
Personally, the 143 ride (when I’m going to Yonge) is a great, fast route and I have no problem coughing up the extra fare. The other benefit is in the PM rush the 143 going east runs as a ‘local’ bus , at ‘regular’ fare, picking up and dropping from Eastern & Queen to Neville Loop.
LikeLike
I really like what Calvin had to say in his latest post in this thread although we really have no way of knowing whether the Eglinton LRT will ever reach ridership levels to justify or require conversion to a full subway. Perhaps it’ll happen and perhaps it won’t but I do see it being maybe the most highly ridden fo the Transit City lines. Although, as I’ve stated before on this site, my tendency to be somewhat more of a subway advocate than you, Steve, I also find that I absolutely, positively have to go along with your position on using LRT to get better transit service to more people as opposed to building subways serving fewer people. I do feel that any BRT or LRT should be built with every possible provision for upgrading to whatever order of transit is above it. The big problem with any mode of transportation is, as I’ve mentioned before, is an overinclination of a given mode’s advocates of seeing it as a be all and end all at the expense all other modes.
LikeLike
@nfitz – If you haven’t heard any complaining about the AB facility – well I won’t call BS on you, but I will suggest you ask around a bit more. Admittedly your councillor (and mine) isn’t talking these days, but apparently the councillor in the ward next door is.
Funny how more issues come to light (coincidentally the same ones residents were trying to raise all along) the day after the election.
But really, you’re proving my initial point: that the proponents of streetcars who (some of them almost contemptuously at times) dismiss the legitimate concerns of residents whose communities are negatively impacted by them do themselves no favours, nor do they do any favours for those like Steve who are attempting to support them.
Steve: The point in Councillor Fletcher’s letter about the 1 year required to remove the “mound” on the site is interesting. The question is whether an alternative site, without a lead time like this, could be available in roughly the same timeframe as Ashbridge. All through the process I had the feeling that the TTC were trying to ram through this option and claiming that the decision had to be made “now”. Many times, they are their own worst enemy.
LikeLike
Rob Ford is not a transit expert. So who advised him that replacing streetcars with buses is the solution to traffic congestion? Was it a corporation involved with buses or automobiles? Firestone Tire? Chevron Corporation? General Motors? Can he provide proof that replacing one streetcar with 2½ buses (and 2½ times the number of drivers) will be of benefit? He should prove how replacing streetcars with buses will help the transit rider and not the single-occupant automobile.
Steve: Rob Ford’s policy advisor and a key member of his campaign team penned a pile of drivel about the TTC on his own blog (no longer available) back in February. It’s a reasonable assumption that although the campaign disavowed what he had written, that the general outlook seen in that piece has informed much of what Rob Ford advocates. I reviewed the post, and followed up with comments on Ford’s transportation platform. Although Mark Towhey’s blog is no longer online, the article in question remains in cache on some search engines.
LikeLike
Karl,
I would suggest that you call Rob Ford’s office about the reasons that you listed which will make it nearly impossible, or prevent, the underground portion of the Eglinton LRT from being converted to HRT in the future. And, also, perhaps offer to hand deliver a summary to City Hall for completeness.
I contacted him a few days after he won the mayor’s office about an entirely different matter. I was surprised, but he really did follow up in a timely manner and, at least in the case of my query, he really was helpful.
Steve: Considering that Karl works in Councillor Thompson’s office, this should not be hard for him to accomplish.
LikeLike