Royson James has a pair of columns in the Toronto Star discussing the perennial LRT vs subway transit debates.
City needs a transit lesson (Nov. 17, 2010)
Commuters won’t fill LRTs, much less subways (Nov. 19, 2010)
James sets out the pros and cons without becoming mired in either side’s arguments. As with any overview, there are points for or against either technology that are not made with the vigour that advocates would prefer. The important issue, however, is not to choose one technology to the exclusion of the other, but to look at the appropriate one for each implementation.
One critical issue — regardless of which side one might be on — is the matter of land use and how the evolution of Toronto will affect demand on routes and the overall network. There are two fundamentally different views of of future development — the Official Plan’s “Avenues” with major streets lined by mid-rise buildings and shops giving an active pedestrian environment at ground level, or the more traditional “tower in a park” design that has shaped much of Toronto’s growth since the 1960s. A third variant has appeared over the past decade — both tall and dense, as exemplified by the railway lands, parts of Liberty Village and most recently the Queen West Triangle (Queen & Dovercourt).
Each of these produces transit demands which vary both due to the built form and to the neighbourhood in which development occurs. A building located in an existing walkable neighbourhood with shops and transit will have very different transportation demands than the same building located on a suburban arterial where the nearest shop is the mall a short drive or a lonely, windy walk away.
The perennial myth about subways is that their high capacity will be consumed by redevelopment around stations. This is utter hogwash. The Yonge line is full well north of Eglinton not with Willowdale condo dwellers, but with traffic fed in on surface routes. Developments along the line add to the demand, but the subway exists to serve a much wider catchment area. Similarly, the BD subway depends on feeder services to many stations, and the decades-long absence of nearby development did not prevent the buildup of demand eastbound from Etobicoke or westbound from Scarborough.
LRT lies somewhere in between by serving both busy “local” corridors and, in some cases, acting almost like a subway in speed, if not capacity. We must remember that the SRT would have been an LRT line (and to Malvern too, decades ago) but for Queen’s Park’s intervention with the ICTS technology. Regardless of technology, it is a medium capacity line whose principal function is to feed the BD subway at Kennedy and, much more recently, to serve the high-density residential development at Scarborough Town Centre, developments that did not occur until decades after the SRT opened.
In many ways, LRT has always been a misunderstood, orphan technology in Toronto. Some within the TTC have never accepted the retention of streetcars, much less the creation of an LRT alternative to full-blown subway construction. At a time when LRT was coming back into favour around the world, Toronto pursued ICTS and lost the chance to show what real LRT could do. At more than double the cost of the LRT proposal, ICTS “proved” that there was no cheap way to implement transit lines, and system expansion stalled. The TTC did nothing to advance the LRT alternative.
Spadina, Harbourfront and St. Clair are really not LRT, but rather upgraded streetcar lines. That statement brings me to a common question: what’s the difference between streetcars, LRT and “Heavy Rapid Transit” (or HRT)? Everyone knows what subways, streetcars and buses are, but things get mushy in the space between them.
The boundary between HRT and LRT is fairly straightforward: if the technology cannot run at grade in medians or crossing streets and walkways, then it’s HRT regardless of what vehicle actually operates on the structure. There can be “light” railways such as the SRT, or full-blown subways, but in either case the lines are confined to an exclusive right-of-way. This imposes costs and complexities wherever they are built.
The boundary between LRT and streetcar is not as clear-cut. How exclusive is the right-of-way? How much mixed-traffic operation does a route have? How aggressive is the traffic signal priority? Do passengers board through all doors? How far apart are the stations? How long are the vehicles or trains? All of these issues and more produce a range of answers, and there is no magic point at which a light blinks on “LRT”. That’s the strength of the technology — LRT does not have to be the same thing all the time on every metre of a route or a network. The challenge is to strike a balance between the “light” and “rapid” parts of the name — exclusivity and speed versus the footprint a line can have in a street and neighbourhood.
The term “LRT” has been oversold in Toronto. We have never seen something in the style of other Canadian LRT implementations in Edmonton or Calgary. We lost that chance when the Scarborough LRT became the “RT”. It’s still dubious whether we will see that route incorporated into an LRT network, or swallowed by a subway extension.
Toronto’s “LRT” routes run through downtown areas with frequent cross-streets where traffic signals grudgingly give priority to transit (but just as often serve to delay it). They have slow on-board fare collection with high-floor cars and low-floor platforms. They suffer a planning context where transit must fight to be acknowledged.
There is only so much road space and money to go around. Subways make for flashy announcements and lots of work for the construction industry, but endless waits by riders whose trips are not served by the most recent subway extension. LRT lines (and busways while we’re on the subject) take space that would otherwise be used by motorists. On some arterials, this space is available, but on many it is not (even VIVA’s BRT network is constrained in places by a narrow right-of-way).
LRT advocates have an uphill battle because Toronto’s version of this technology pleases few. St. Clair was a disaster for “LRT” (and for transit in general) — there were too many design tradeoffs and construction was appallingly mismanaged. Operations have improved over “the old days”, but still depend on keen route supervisors who actually manage the service rather than letting cars roam back and forth in packs taking generous layovers at terminals. We may be rid of traffic congestion, but not the infamous TTC culture.
The political climate may shift back to one where we make announcements to appear to be “doing something”, even if that won’t bear fruit for a decade or more. Such plans will serve only small parts of the GTA when finished (if ever), we will have yet another “lost generation” of transit investment. Decisions about how to build, where to build, what to build are difficult and need more than an endless supply of magic markers, maps and press kits.
We have seen how a proposed LRT network suffered from funding cutbacks. Major new revenue streams (tolls, regional taxes) cannot be implemented in the current political climate without a huge fight and an expenditure of political capital nobody seems willing to make today.
“The Big Move” could turn out to be little more than a modest expansion of GO Transit, busways, and a few rail lines of indeterminate technology within Toronto. That’s not a network, and certainly not a recipe for convincing people that transit can offer an alternative to driving. The challenge is to find a plan, a network, a quality of transit service that people are willing to pay for, however the money is raised.
LRT has a role as do full-blown subways and busways with each fitting into the mix under the right circumstances. Advocates would do well to focus on the strength of each technology rather than trying to justify a full network of one option. The goal is to improve and expand transit, not to prove that my subway is better than your streetcar.
Footnote:
Within James’ second article, the TTC is quoted as saying that ridership on the King car is 1,800 per hour. It’s worth noting that the AM peak service is 30 cars/hour of which 7 trips are served by ALRVs. The TTC’s service design capacity is 74 for CLRVs and 108 for ALRVs, and this gives a total for the route of about 2,450. Crush capacity is higher. A common complaint from riders is that they cannot get on, and this suggests that the demand cited by the TTC is rather lower than the actual level.
Steve Munro 
There seems to be a bit of confusion about capacity on GO rail lines…
The signalling system can definately support five minute headways (I know this because I’ve had a train arrive within five minutes of another passing through on the same track), which nominally allows 12 trains/hour. There are six tracks to the east of Union (and at least eight tracks to the west), so in theory you could be feeding in 6*12 = 72 trains/hour into and out of Union. (Although this would mean only the eastern GO train routes get five minute headways).
However, the limiting factor is actually Union’s platforms… from one train begining to pull out to another stopping at the same platform is about 6-7 minutes. Allowing for dwell time, it’s about 10-12 minutes per train (5-6 trains per hour, per track). Union has eleven tracks for use by passengers, of which I think 2 or 3 are used by VIA, leaving 8 or 9 for use by GO. That results in between 40 and 54 trains/hour at Union. Double-berthing (stopping one train behind another) could allow one track to supoprt two trains every 15 minutes, which results in 64-72 GO trains per hour. The critical number is that platform re-occupation time – decreasing that is the only way to more trains.
So, five minute headways are *just* possible for the eastern routes with double berthing… but it would be far too fragile to be practical, and doesn’t take account of limits imposed by switch layouts, getting trains to/from yards etc. My instinct is that trying to get much more than 50-55 GO Trains per hour into Union (and out again) will require something heroic, but that limit still allows headways of about 8 minutes.
LikeLike
Michael asked how we could:
“… fund a 2-fold or 3-fold increase in service level?”
Kevin’s answer:
By redirecting a lot of the waste and inefficiency in the present transportation system into improving service levels.
Here is how to do it.
I see that there are approximately one million private automobiles in Toronto today. Source:
http://www.jpint.utoronto.ca/tts01/Toronto.html
The cost to their private owners is typically well over $8,000 each per year.
Source:
Click to access CAA_Driving_Costs_Brochure_2010.pdf
The CAA is, of course, rather biased towards cars. So I note that (among other things) car parking costs are totally excluded from their calculations. Even private house owners have a good chunk of their house mortgage and maintenance costs going towards the garage and driveway. But I’ll take $8,000 as a very low estimate in order to be conservative in my calculations.
So, one million times $8,000 gives eight billion dollars. That’s $8,000,000,000.00 wasted on cars by their private owners every year.
There are also serious public costs. Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown, reports that car pollution kills 440 people per year in Toronto and injures 1,700 so seriously that they have to be hospitalised. The mortality costs alone are $2.2 billion per year.
Source:
Click to access air_pollution_burden.pdf
Excess road maintenance costs due to cars as well as police, fire and ambulance service costs due to cars are over $1.2 billion per year.
The government of Canada has spent over $35 billion on our current military adventure in the Middle East, but I think that I’ll exclude that from my calculations since it appears to be winding down. Still, $35 billion could have bought a lot of other things rather than being wasted on losing a war.
So that gives us $13.4 billion per year, each year. To get our hands on that money, I’ll use the revenue generation methods from Table 8 on Page 33 of Dr. McKeown’s report. These include:
*Fuel taxes
*Tax shifting
*Road Pricing
*Parking Pricing
Dr. McKeown estimates that typical use of these measures would suppress car use by 25-55%. I’ll choose the mid-point of 40%, and assume elasticity of demand is such that this yields 40% of the $13.4 billion, or $5.4 billion per year.
$5.4 billion per year is sufficient to fund the transportation proposals that I’ve been putting forth. Please note that this does not involve spending one extra penny on transportation in Toronto. Every penny comes from existing transportation spending. I’m simply redirecting that spending away from wasteful and inefficient means.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of positions of ATU 113’s that I disagree with, but one thing that I agree with them on is the need to separate operators from vehicles. On frequent service routes in particular, this should be easy to implement, but requires savvy route managers to pull off. However, after watching 4 510 Spadinas going southbound at Harbord nose-to-nose-to-nose-to-nose yesterday at around 5pm, I can’t help but wonder whether or not “savvy route manager” is an oxymoron. The new GPS monitoring is evidently working wonders.
Steve: One problem that Spadina has is that when a bunch forms on the line, it is not practical to hold cars for dispatch southbound from Bloor because this prevents incoming cars from getting to the offloading platform. Spacing of service is possible, however, at the end of a bunch, presuming that the supervisor at Spadina Station knows where this is. Just glacing at the expected arrival times of incoming service should alert the supervisor to a pending gap, but I am not sure how many of them make use of this info.
LikeLike
Stephen Cheung said: “the move to headway-based running is being blocked because no one on the ATU 113 wants to be in a situation in which they end their shift at the opposite end of the city where they would like to be”.
This is kind of understandable, operators want to get back home to their families after the shift rather than tour the TTC for another hour.
At the same time, can the TTC take that into account, and still manage the streetcar routes by headways? For example, keep a small fleet of cars that pick operators wherever they finish their shift. A few $15,000 cars to improve the usage of the large fleet of $5,000,000-apiece streetcars does not seem like a bad investment.
LikeLike
Steve said “Spacing of service is possible, however, at the end of a bunch, presuming that the supervisor at Spadina Station knows where this is. Just glancing at the expected arrival times of incoming service should alert the supervisor to a pending gap, but I am not sure how many of them make use of this info.”
If the info is already in electronic form, why not let a computer handle this? Put a green/yellow/red stoplight at the point that cars leave the station to obtain a more even release. Remove the need for someone’s discretion, but keep a method to override for rare exceptions.
You could use a very similar tactic at places where streetcars enter the line from loops. Do the streetcars that wait outside MEC rejoin the Spadina line at a set time, or can an automatic system be used to have them enter the line to fill a large gap?
Steve: In theory this could be automated, but there are many different situations and providing for all of them is not always possible. If I wanted to be really cynical, I would warn about proposing such a system as the TTC would then use the not-quite-available-yet state of the incomplete system as their excuse for not doing manually what Inspectors standing on street corners were able to do 50 years ago.
LikeLike
Not wanting to end your shift far from home or where you parked your car is NOT a union issue. It’s a simple matter of respect. Just how much time should a TTC employee be expected to travel each day off-the-clock? Why should they be expected to never know for sure where they’ll get dropped when shift-end comes and how long it will take them to get home or to the next part of a disjointed split-shift? (I spoke to one operator who started in Scarborough and finished on St. Clair – he spent most of the time between shifts travelling between those routes.) You could have to report for work in the middle of the night for a split shift spanning 12 hours and then have it take an indeterminate number of hours to get home? And this after facing the daily ire of the public and the worst part of rush-hour road congestion on the job. The solution to route management issues shouldn’t be leaving workers with no lives.
A friend of mine used to work for Toronto Ambulance (EMS). It wasn’t the nature of the emergencies that caused him to quit. It was not knowing in advance which station in the city you’d have to report for work at, no guarantee of a lunch break, lack of respect from superiors, and getting home very late from anywhere and everywhere. This is a perfect example of a city service where the employees take the hit for the organization’s problems and budget. If they show up late to your 911 call because they’re the only unit left available in the quadrant you’ll be none too happy.
I work in home improvement retail and I face enough of the ‘entitlement to service’ factor as it is. I could start a shift day to day anywhere between 6am and 2pm. I frequently miss my two miniscule 15 minute breaks or am late starting my meal break by as much as two hours because a constant stream of customers very forcefully expects to be served, even when I’m out of uniform and trying to walk the hundred feet to the break room. It often means I can’t leave work on-time either which screws up my personal life and my other obligations greatly. In the evenings the bus route I take home arrives on a 20 to 30 minute headway. If I’m not out of the building and at the stop on time I’ll miss the bus and have to wait all that time for another one. At the end of the PM rush when runs start dropping like flies off the route this wait can turn into more than an hour, worse than after 11pm. The public really doesn’t have a clue until I explain to them how crappy my life has been made just so they can get stuff for their home at the lowest possible price and cheerful, knowledgeable customer service while they’re at it no matter what’s happening. They can’t believe I get only one weekend off per month while at the same time being the first to freak out if they have to wait 30 seconds for help at the height of a busy Saturday.
Telling TTC workers to end their shift half-way across the city from their car is extremely disrespectful and is a non-starter.
LikeLike
Stephen Cheung said: “the move to headway-based running is being blocked because no one on the ATU 113 wants to be in a situation in which they end their shift at the opposite end of the city where they would like to be”.
I end every single working day at the opposite end of the city to where I would like to be. Unlike TTC operators, I don’t get a free ride home. (Do subway drivers who live near downtown get to end their shifts at Union?)
Steve: For clarity, the way crews work on the TTC is that there are two places where an operator may take over or drop off a vehicle. One is at the garage/carhouse (the vehicle is entering or leaving service), and the other is at a designated point on the route. Operators are paid travel time to or from the crew change point because, in some cases, a considerable journey is involved from the division office to the route. For example, the St. Clair car operates from Roncesvalles, and operators are paid for travel time to or from Lansdowne and St. Clair, the shortest transit-based distance away from the division. One of the cost effects of closing St. Clair Division (the carhouse at Wychwood) was a considerable increase in dead-head and travel times to operate this route from Ronces. This was offset by the saving of closing a small division. Sadly, decades later, this offset is forgotten and the travel time is seen only as a cost.
LikeLike
Dennis Rankin & Dennis Youngs: Yes you are 100% correct. My strategy only works if you are going a short distance on a route that you know and you are getting off before the next short turn point. Otherwise, your “ride in comfort” may end prematurely.
LikeLike
If Transit City was to use the TTC gauge that the streetcars and heavy rail network uses, the 512 ST. CLAIR streetcar could have used the Black Creek carhouse. However, since it looks like Transit City will use standard gauge, it means 512 ST. CLAIR will not be able to use Black Creek, unless they double track it (unlikely).
That leaves the only other alternative, replacing the buses on the 40 JUNCTION route with streetcars and extending the 512 ST. CLAIR to connect with those tracks to reach Roncesvalles. Unlikely under Rob Ford.
LikeLike
Stephen Cheung said: “the move to headway-based running is being blocked because no one on the ATU 113 wants to be in a situation in which they end their shift at the opposite end of the city where they would like to be”.
It is easy for the relief operator as he/she can just take over the next streetcar at the designated point. However if there was a delay and the operator is due to be relieved at roncy & queen and is at Neville he cannot just leave the streetcar there. There has to be someone to drive it.
LikeLike
Kevin Love said: “So that gives us $13.4 billion per year, each year. To get our hands on that money, I’ll use the revenue generation methods from Table 8 on Page 33 of Dr. McKeown’s report. These include: *Fuel taxes *Tax shifting *Road Pricing *Parking Pricing
Dr. McKeown estimates that typical use of these measures would suppress car use by 25-55%. I’ll choose the mid-point of 40%, and assume elasticity of demand is such that this yields 40% of the $13.4 billion, or $5.4 billion per year. ”
Michael’s response: your arithmetics is correct, but I see quite a few problems with the context of it. First of all, Table 8 that you referenced does not state that the above 4 measures together will reduce car use by 25-55%. That table gives expected reduction from each measures individually. You calculated the combined effect as a sum of the four, but that assumption might not hold. Many car trips are inevitable because of the lack of transit alternative. Fiscal disinsentives are likely to cut off “choice drivers”, but “captive drivers” will continue to drive no matter how much it costs them.
Even more importantly, large part of car costs arise by the very fact of car ownership (insurance, driveways as a part of mortgage, even maintenance to a degree) and are not proportional to usage. So, even if people drive 25% less, you won’t get 25% of their former car costs into public coffers.
Then, the proposed radical volume of car taxation will affect different social groups very dispoportionally. Downtown condo residents will not have to pay anything as they don’t own cars anyway, and will get a vastly better transit service; whereas suburban families with small kids will have to pay for that great transit but will not be able to use it because transit does not take them from the workplace to the daycare before it closes at 6pm. (The example is for illustration only; obviously the individual situations vary within each group.)
Likewise, it is hard to tell Parry Sound residents to pay a double fuel price to support transit in Toronto that they never use. On the other hand, setting a huge difference in fuel prices between GTA and the rural Ontario will prompt fuel smuggling.
Because of the aforementioned complications (and actually I can think of some more), the realistic stream of revenues for public transit will be much smaller than you suggested.
This is not to say that fiscal tools you mentioned should not be applied. Some of them, in particular a reasonable (not huge) GTA-wide fuel surtax will be quite useful, to support the existing service levels and / or the network expansion. But giving every peak-hour rider a seat is far beyond realistic; how many of other major cities in the world have achieved that?
LikeLike
W. K. Lis says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm
If Transit City was to use the TTC gauge that the streetcars and heavy rail network uses, the 512 ST. CLAIR streetcar could have used the Black Creek carhouse. However, since it looks like Transit City will use standard gauge, it means 512 ST. CLAIR will not be able to use Black Creek, unless they double track it (unlikely).
That leaves the only other alternative, replacing the buses on the 40 JUNCTION route with streetcars and extending the 512 ST. CLAIR to connect with those tracks to reach Roncesvalles. Unlikely under Rob Ford.
Great idea! Streetcars in the Junction once again. Extend St.Clair car west to Jane Street which is a major long haul route.
LikeLike
Tom West says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:56 am
“There seems to be a bit of confusion about capacity on GO rail lines…
“The signalling system can definately support five minute headways (I know this because I’ve had a train arrive within five minutes of another passing through on the same track), which nominally allows 12 trains/hour. There are six tracks to the east of Union (and at least eight tracks to the west), so in theory you could be feeding in 6*12 = 72 trains/hour into and out of Union. (Although this would mean only the eastern GO train routes get five minute headways).”
The question is what speeds were these trains operating at when on the 5 minute headway and did they travel on the same track all the way? The trains can operate on a much closer headway in certain conditions if they are travelling slow enough to stop in half of the distance that they can see ahead. I forget which rule this is, but who wants to travel from Hamilton to Toronto at 10 km/h. While they may be able to enter Union on the same platform on a 5 minute headway but they are not allowed to operate on a mainline with the current signalling system on much under a 10 minute headway. This is not to say that the vehicles are incapable of operating on a closer headway but that the current signalling and operating rules will not allow it. They are designed to allow 7 000 foot long, or longer, freights to operate on the tracks. As long as there is any possibility of a freight being operated on those lines then the rules will not change. This is why GO/MetroLinx needs to look at making as many corridors as possible Commuter only lines with no freights allowed during the the times when commuter trains run. This then leaves the problem of getting everyone through Union.
LikeLike
Hi Everyone:-
Historically there have been a number of examples of third rail and trolley power collection by the same car on the same route and some of those routes having portions running on the street. While on the street the third rail shoes and collector beams would be dead as the traction power into the cars would be running through a simple switched circuit. Two lines still in daily operation are the Blue line in Boston and the Skokie Swift in Chicago. They are both under overhead on the outer portions of their lines and on third rail on the inner, with the Boston line being under wire when outside and on third rail when in the tunnel.
Three that no longer exist include the Lehigh Valley Traction’s line from Norristown to Allentown Pennsylvania where the cars used overhead, but when running on the high speed line to 69th street they were powered from the third rail. On the under overhead portions the LVT was the definition of everything that was an interurban line, with some street running, some side of the road and some entirely private right of way cutting cross country.
Another was the Brooklyn Elevated Railway system. When Brooklyn’s outer reaches were being tamed, elevated trains left the inner city portions on the el, there powered by the third rail and then ventured down to the street to the farther reaches of the Borough under wire.
The last example was already touched on being the predecessor of the Chicago el’s route and that was the North Shore’s line to Milwaukee. When in Chicago the trains ran on the el by third rail power and when traveling out through Skokie and then onwards to Milwaukee they left the power rail behind and were powered up by the overhead. It was quite a skill for the North Shore’s Conductors to raise the poles on each car of the train while it was scooting along at better than 60 mph and after dark when required. (The Skokie Swift has pantographs that the motorman raises and lowers while traveling with the comfort of push button control in his cab on this same section of track) There was about a mile of dual overhead and third rail to allow time for the switchover. The Milwaukee terminal of the North Shore Line was reached by running over a number of blocks of South Milwaukee streets (shared with the company’s little single truck Birnie streetcars).
There were other examples scattered all over US of A with similar operating necessities but these are the major ones that come to my mind.
So the gist of all of this is yes, it can be done, HRT can be LRT soooooo just another chance to muddy the definition waters. Some of these cars had the ability to receive passengers both from floor level platforms and street level stops too. (As Buffalo’s cars do now although Buffalo’s cars operate entirely under wire)
Dennis
LikeLike
Just a couple of comments regarding “headway based management” and finishing shifts away from the relief point.. As you know, I am a TTC operator. When it is time to be relieved, my relief operator is waiting at a specified point. If I am late, how is my relief operator supposed to meet me at the opposite end of the line? I can’t just abandon the vehicle at Steeles Ave. when the relief operator is waiting at Victoria Park Station. Keep in mind that every operator gets paid DOUBLE TIME after ten minutes late for relief (surface) (after five minutes for subway) – this is called “Late In”. The relief operator is on the clock whether or not the vehicle shows up on time or not. We are paid “travel time” to the relief point from our report point (usually our home division). Are we to paid additional travel time to meet the late vehicle? The issue is actually one of route management, not headways. A vehicle that is due for relief should actually be short-turned to return to the relief point on time. Keep in mind that there are “spread limits” in place as well that can affect the operator’s next day work. If you end up working beyond your spread limits you are ESA’d (Employmenent Standard Act). This has been a major issue in the contract negotiations over the past several contracts. Do you really want operators on your vehicles whos haven’t had proper rest between shifts?
It is unfortunate that Stephen Cheung views this as “union issue” and Steve Munro’s rebuttal to his point is very characteristic of blaming the union for these problems. Is it the fault of the union that there are traffic delays along the route? Is it the fault of the union that construction is causing delays? Did the the union cause the collision on the route – or the police investigation – or the diversion due to a working fire? Get real here!! I sign my crews based on a finish time at a specific point. If I am late by a few minutes, so be it. If I get relieved at the opposite end of the line, I expect to be paid well for it because I will encur additional travel time to get back to my relief point to go home! I will make one additional comment here: If you have not performed my job duties, you have no basis upon which to comment on them! I have done many shifts with maximum spread limits – and you have no idea how tiring that can be until you have done them!
Steve: To be clear, I am not blaming the union for these problems. However, if there is to be a new approach to managing routes, then both management and labour must concur on the approach. For example, any move to extend step back or step forward management to routes that don’t pass by a division office (most of them) will require figuring out how to manage the pool of spare operators. Do you take over a local restaurant, or what? Also, every operator knows that a few of your number play games dawdling along a route in an attempt to be short turned, or running right behind the preceding vehicle. If management is going to try to space service (something that is basic to line management), then this should be seen as an effort to improve service and, indirectly, working conditions for everyone.
One thing I have been particularly annoyed by is the slowness with which making available displays for route supervisors has been rolled out. TTC management spent ages fighting the public display of vehicle locations via NextBus in part because this showed so embarrassingly how scattered the service was. This same type of display, supplemented with information about crews, is exactly what supervisors on street need to understand how their lines are behaving.
Finally, TTC operations needs to regularly analyze route behaviour using vehicle tracking data. It is not difficult to get a reading on service quality once you develop the analytical tools, and presuming that you care to understand what is happening. I have done a lot of work on this sort of thing, pro bono, as and when I have the time and energy to devote to the issue. It is extraordinarily frustrating that nobody at the TTC has ever asked about the details behind my route analyses, and my info from contacts is that the folks in operations just don’t care.
In this context, blaming the union is the last thing on my mind.
LikeLike
“That leaves the only other alternative, replacing the buses on the 40 JUNCTION route with streetcars and extending the 512 ST. CLAIR to connect with those tracks to reach Roncesvalles. Unlikely under Rob Ford.
Great idea! Streetcars in the Junction once again. Extend St.Clair car west to Jane Street which is a major long haul route.”
I’m not sure if any of the Junction route goes through Ana Bailao’s ward, but given that her first priority as dictated by the BIA along Dundas West is to restore on-street parking, I doubt streetcars are likely. I’d like to propose a new rule: any neighbourhood/BIA that lobbies for on-street parking for a handful of cars is not allowed to blame bike lanes or streetcars for gridlock. I live along St. Clair and it slays me that people complain about the ROW which moves tens of thousands per day but fight tooth and nail for parking which benefits a few hundred at most. If it were up to Save our St. Clair, we’d still all be jammed into diesel buses, lined end-to-end from Yonge to Keele, and squeezing into stops where illegally parked cars are fouling up the traffic flow.
Steve: When the Dundas parking proposal first appeared, I cautioned that it was excessive for what it would achieve. The real problem for traffic was queuing at intersections where left turns held up through traffic (never mind the streetcars), and removing all parking between intersections was an excessive response. However, fine-tuning the proposal to reduce the loss of parking might have looked like compromise, like backing down, and the opportunity to reduce the effect to what was strictly needed was lost.
LikeLike
To stay w/the current issue in the thread….
For LRT (or to be specific here, EXCLUSIVE ROW, streetcars…
Provided we do 2 simple things, there is no excuse (routinely) for not operating to schedule (or headway) within reasonable times for operators:
1) Removed the concrete and use exposed railway for non-traffic lit crossings
2) Use Railway-style crossing (just as Calgary’s C-Train does, with barriers and absolute override of traffic lights 100% of the time)
*****
That settled, the issue of running close to schedule for non-exclusive ROW services is more of a challenge. However, the answers to substantial compliance seem clear.
1) Have control points (transit, subway-style signals) which space cars, at selected points on-route, and ban parking in the adjacent lane where the signal is located, to allow passing by cars.
2) Make sure all traffic-lights on-route, allow streetcars first, left-turns second, where permitted.
3) Where left-turns are prohibited, at non-traffic lit intersections, put a barrier up, preventing turning across the tracks.
4) Use step-back crewing for seamless changes.
The above is not perfect, but should allow substantially correct vehicle spacing along with reasonable clarity for staff shifts, most days, on most routes.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman says: “The question is what speeds were these trains operating at when on the 5 minute headway and did they travel on the same track all the way? The trains can operate on a much closer headway in certain conditions if they are travelling slow enough to stop in half of the distance that they can see ahead.”
Answer: They were running at line speed, so the headway was that dictated by the signalling system, not by line-of-sight. (Do GO trains ever operate on line-of-sight while carrying passsengers?)
As I think we’re all agreed, the problem is not how many trains we can run a given line, but how many we can squeeze into Union. (Moving VIA’s services to Summerhill might help…)
LikeLike
I’m not sure if anyone has previously supplied the link to the route animation for Calgary’s West LRT.
http://www.westlrt.ca/contentabout/route_animation.cfm
8km long from 10St SW downtown to 69th Street SW.
Only about 30% of the route is at grade level.
6 level crossings, LRT has priority at five of them. The one exception is 11th Street downtown where regular traffic light operation will be used.
Operation starts in Dec. 2012 with three car trains. Calgary is (slowing) moving towards four car trains.
LikeLike
How will the tunnels on Eglinton Ave. differ from subway tunnels in terms of their size dimensions, depth underground and expense. Likewise for the stations?
Steve: Eglinton is in general deeper than most other tunnels. This is caused by the changing level of the surface and by the need to stay clear of utilities. Tunnels have been getting bigger for safety reasons (wider catwalks). Indeed, the Sheppard tunnel is supposed to be big enough to handle overhead power supply if it were converted to LRT, and the main problem with clearances are at stations. I am getting tired of how the TTC talks about the need for big tunnels for LRT overhead when subway tunnels are bigger than in “the old days”.
Station depth varies with location. Please refer to the detailed plans and profile in the appendices to the Eglinton LRT’s EA report.
LikeLike
Steve, could you comment on the effect that LRT would have on land value and development, versus the effect of subways? Some subway advocates imply that subways are the only solution at raising land values and spurring economic development, and LRT is totally useless at that. But some statistics taken from TVO’s “The Agenda” say that Portland’s LRT brought “$3.5 billion in investment, including 10 212 new housing units and 5.4 million square feet of commercial, institutional, and hotel construction, all within two blocks of the LRT route”. I wonder on what scale of development that would equate to in Toronto, if possible.
Is there any correlation between size of development and transit technology?
Steve: This sort of calculation is voodoo economics regardless of which side of the subway/LRT argument one might be on. Metrolinx actually uses higher uplift values for LRT because it’s on the surface and stations are closer together. Therefore, more nearby land is in walking distance of service. That is definitely a problem on subway lines where stations are far apart. Even at 1km spacing, the line will encourage high density point form development at the stations rather than lower density, medium rise along the route. This distinction is part of the Official Plan, and is also one reason why LRT was preferred over subways for Transit City.
Having said all of this, the problem remains that development will not occur where a neighbourhood isn’t ready for it. The GTA can only absorb so much new housing and office space per year, and it will tend to go where, economically, it makes sense to build. We know how some sites along existing subway lines have waited decades for development to show up, and some site likely never will change from their existing form. If an area is ripe for development and there is official interest in encouraging this to happen quickly, then a new transit service may be what’s needed to spur developers to action. However, transit would only be part of a larger combination of factors.
LikeLike
“In this context, blaming the union is the last thing on my mind.”
Nor is it the first thing on my mind. But one thing that I have noticed is that the Union has its fingers in a lot of pies at the TTC. They have a say on how workers are scheduled, how they are deployed, when and where they can have their breaks, etc. I agree with Steve’s comment about management and labour coming to an agreement on how to manage service. However, years of experience riding the TTC has led me to believe that Management does not have the power to even sneeze let alone pissing off the union. Years ago, I spoke to a driver on the 95 York Mills route who turned down a supervisor position because he did not want to deal with union politics; “You have no real power in that kind of position” is what he said.
Management can manage service better, but the Union needs to come on board as well. If the union is inflexible on how they want their drivers to do their job, then there isn’t much Management can do to improve service. I just find it hard to believe that Management these days is so inept at managing service levels. There is something gravely wrong with that picture and in this case, I don’t think management is solely to blame. There is always an underlying issue.
Steve: Equally, when the organization claims that customer service is important, and that operators should use their initiative, but then disciplines them for breaking some rule that, under the circumstances, didn’t make sense, this sends the message that the rules are more important than understanding what’s going on. Route supervisors are stuck in the middle.
LikeLike
Gord says:
November 23, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Keep in mind that every operator gets paid DOUBLE TIME after ten minutes late for relief (surface) (after five minutes for subway) – this is called “Late In”. The relief operator is on the clock whether or not the vehicle shows up on time or not. We are paid “travel time” to the relief point from our report point (usually our home division).
*** Thanks for this insight. How are you paid for travel time? Straight time pro rata? Actual time occupied or an agreed upon allowance? When does the normal 8 hour straight time commence and end? When is time and one half paid? Are there other penalties paid at time and one half or double time? Are there other allowances? Are there scheduled paid meal and/or break periods? If any are missed or denied what is the penalty?
Steve: I will leave this to Gord to explain the details as it gets rather complex. In brief, reporting and travel time count the same as driving time, and there are paid coffee breaks (this is a legal requirement under Labour Standards) for ops who have straight through shifts. Higher rates kick in when the total hours exceeds either 8 or 8.5 (I’m not current on this), or when the spread between start and end times of a multi-part crew go past a threshold. There are other variations, but one general observation is that improving off peak service is generally cheaper on a vehicle hour basis because more of an operator’s time is spent driving on the route than on deadheading to or from service, and a greater proportion of crews can be built as straight throughs. This compounds the benefit that the vehicle and infrastructure already exist for peak service.
Sadly, too often, critics look at the “inefficiency” of vehicles running offpeak without jam-packed loads not realizing that the marketing benefit of better service can be obtained at a lower cost than handling more commuter traffic.
LikeLike
” Robert in Calgary”
Intersting Animation.
I grew up in Calgary a long time ago.
The infomative years.
Lived in Wildwood.
Things have certainly changed
Maybe in 2013 I will make a return visit.
LikeLike
Given the general confusion and lack of consensus on the definition of LRT (not exclusive to this blog), I referred back to my transit textbook (Urban Transit by Vukan Vuchic, 2005).
“Light Rail Transit (LRT) – Electric rail vehicles, usually articulated in one- to three-car trains operating mostly on right-of-way (ROW) category B, but also on A (eg. tunnels) and C (in pedestrian zones). The wide range of its designs goes from tramway-type lines with priority treatment to small-sized rapid transit”
Using this definition, St. Clair/Spadina, Transit City and the SRT, despite differences in capacity and performance, are all LRT.
I hope this definition helps.
(Also, for those who don’t know the different ROW categories, A=exclusive ROW, usually grade separated; B=dedicated lanes with at-grade crossings and traffic lights; C=mixed traffic.)
Steve: The problem is not with definitions, but with the absence of good examples of higher order LRT here in Toronto, coupled with people taking the worst aspects of the existing system as examples.
LikeLike
Relevant to the Article, not so much to the current conversation…
Eglinton LRT. Just looking over the EA, it is a very well done route from Keele till Laird. The planning is a complete disaster from Jane till the airport but luckily (or strategically) Metrolinx postponed that route into the distant future so that they could probably fix its route layout to make use of the obvious golden opportunity along its path (expressway corridor). Thank God for that one!
From Jane to the Keele Portal. The route is okay but i feel that maybe extending the underground/elevated portal from Keele to Jane would be beneficial in avoiding the expropriation of homes on Eglinton AND preparing for the future “multi-modal node” with a future GO Station (and a nice and large parking garage area on the SW corner of Black Creek Drive & Eglinton that feeds direct ramps from the expressway [a nice terminus for hwy400] to the GO Transit/TTC “Mega-Station”) but overall it is okay the way it is.
Steve: The problem in Weston with housing effects of tunnel construction is a combination of the route’s alignment and the placement of Weston Station. Crossing Black Creek, the LRT line is on the north side of Eglinton to make an easy link into the carhouse on the Kodak lands. The line swings back to the south, but the station structure is followed to the west by a pocket track. This makes the wide section of the structure long enough that it conflicts with the houses on the north side of Eglinton. It’s a tricky alignment problem no matter what technology is used.
The Eastern portal should ascend on the south side of Eglinton and Leslie should have a more “Calgary” style LRT station with center platforms, all on the south side of the intersection. Then the tracks should proceed (on the south side of Eglinton) through a new underpass adjacent to the existing one on Eglinton, go through the beautiful woods and skirt around the ramps to Celestica and then finally descend into the portal (as planned) into the underground Don Mills Station.
This would not cost significantly more, but what it would do is continue an uninterrupted LRT line from Jane till Don Mills. This is significant because it is at these two ends that 2 future north-south LRT lines will be built. East of Don Mills and West of Jane, a semi-separated LRT is acceptable but between Jane and Don Mills, a fully segregated LRT is necessary.
Another area that needs focus is the future mess between Victoria Park & Warden. This area is a colossal commercial strip and it will definitely impact service. There is a small triangular strip of land, completely empty, on the SE corner of Victoria Park & Eglinton. The LRT should enter a portal before Victoria Park, veer south, and enter a trenched Victoria Park station + Bus Terminal. This trench should then continue on the south side of Eglinton and then veer back to the center of Eglinton after Warden Ave. Again, a small increase on cost but a very beneficial improvement for the future of the corridor.
I also think that it is best to build a very simple LRT to Subway connection at Consumers (and extend the subway one stop east) similar to the old Yonge & Bloor transfer in the pre-subway days. This will save a lot of money and ensure that when the time and density is right, the subway can be extended east towards STC.
Finch West LRT is good but one area that should be revised is the section where the train turns from Finch southbound along Highway 27 to Humber College. It should be noted that these two roads have completely different roles and speed limits. The best solution would be to create a portal on Finch just east of Hwy 27 and make the LRT go under the intersection and enter a trenched station on the west side of hwy 27. Then continuing along a trench, it would pass under Humber college boulevard and enter the terminus as planned.
At this point, even if it is all built as-is, i would be happy! Anything is better than nothing!
Thanks.
Steve: The following was posted in a separate comment, but has been moved here.
**I Just took a quick look at Google Streetview and realized the Rail Underpass on Eglinton east of Leslie is a single structure without a median pillar. In that case, it is obviously best to just keep the LRT on the south side and pass under the existing structure with a 4 lane Eglinton Ave north of the tracks.
LikeLike
On headway-based operating, this issue in the balance is the operating being arriving at home one hour late (paid) verses dozens of riders arriving at home twenty minutes late (unpaid).
“the absence of good examples of higher order LRT here in Toronto”
This is an example pretty close what is planned for Transit City: The Queensway. It has a ROW, fairly long stop spacing and generous green time for streetcars.
It even has a bridge allowing the tracks to go from the centre of the street to the side without impacting traffic, which is an idea that might be used in Transit City.
LikeLike
“This is an example pretty close what is planned for Transit City: The Queensway. It has a ROW, fairly long stop spacing and generous green time for streetcars.”
And instead of breezing through traffic signal controlled intersections, the TTC slows streetcars to 10 km/h.
LikeLike
Just a quick note in response to Jeff: I’m a convert to an extension to Consumers, but would suggest that there is no need to build it on day 1. The line will reach Don Mills on the surface no matter what to create a track connection to the Don Mills line; the underground line is intended for actual service, and the surface route across the 401 WILL be in mixed traffic. From that, I would suggest that the LRT open to Don Mills with a tranfer required on street terminus at Don Mills with the explicit intention of extending the subway to Consumers ASAP; this saves us money over all permanent options in the long term (makes the new mayor look good) and solves the biggest problem of terminating the Sheppard service at Consumers of requiring double transfers between the Sheppard and Don Mills LRTs (you have a good subway/LRT connection at Consumers, and a less ideal but at least direct LRT/LRT connection at Don Mills).
I’d suggest in the same vein of concessions to the new mayor that a branch be added down the Stouffville GO corridor, connecting with the SRT ROW into STC when that line gets converted/abandoned. This would at least significantly improve the STC connection without having to build the subway, and if the SRT were to be replaced outright would keep the ROW in use and Midland and McCowan stations open (doubly important if, as I suspect could happen, a subway route were to actually run to McCowan, conveniently rename STC East or something similar).
Steve: It is important to remember that GO intends to eventually add trackage on the Uxbridge Subdivision to permit frequent all-day service. The amount of room available for a parallel LRT service from Sheppard south to Progress may be limited. This would definitely be only an LRT option as the curves would be too tight for a Sheppard subway. That’s why the original subway plans drifted south from Sheppard to STC gradually, not on a north-south alignment. If the subway ever goes to STC, Midland and McCowan Stations will vanish because the line will be on a completely different alignment. Rob Ford’s subway loop requires that the Danforth extension approach STC from the south so that it could then curve west to hook into Sheppard.
LikeLike
On the topic of LRT definitions, the thing that is missing, and really needs to be worked on, is definitions of transit modes that are based in the function of a system rather than the technical/engineering side of the project. The whole problem amounts to the reality that from a purely technical perspective (at least when it comes to construction and maintenance) LRT and streetcars are really ARE the same thing. Bearing in mind how heavily engineers are involved in all aspects of transit planning (not just the design areas they are particularly suited for as a group) there is a distinct tendency in official discussions to ignore the realities of how different various implementations are.
We get the same problem with BRT (although this one is more the fault of marketing people) being anything with transit buses doing something other than mixed traffic stops at (more or less) every intersection. Functionally I would argue that there are least three distinct modes in here, and that the vehicle type really is NOT the defining feature of a transit service in terms of it’s function (yes, yes, we all know it does have an impact on attractiveness, but frankly data is limited and it’s importance does appear to be smaller than actual operating characteristics).
All in all, we need new terminology. Something that recognizes (all of these being generalizations) Transit City and the Queen car are different modes, both of which are different from subways, which are IMO functionally equivalent to an LRT system on the level of Calgary’s (with only the exception of 7th avenue).
Steve: A good example of the BRT issue is Viva which started out with spiffy “European” buses. More recent BRT offerings recognize that a bus is a bus is a bus, subject to the type of seating one puts in it. Branding and service quality are the watchwords.
LikeLike
quote:”One critical issue — regardless of which side one might be on — is the matter of land use and how the evolution of Toronto will affect demand on routes and the overall network.”
The book Transport for Suburbia should be read by everyone on here. It is a great read as to why we have to stop using land use and density as an excuse for not providing higher order and good transit.
In fact the author uses Toronto as an example with subways and frequent bus service in the suburbs.
Toronto has filled subways in the suburbs before. In fact it is the suburban ridership for the most part that overcrowds our subways.
So we have to stop using density and land use as an excuse. Our transit system serves a mostly lower density suburban area, and yet carries a ton of people. And yes most TTC riders are suburban riders.
So let’s stop saying the suburbs are not good enough for proper rapid transit, be it subway or LRT, etc. And instead lets work at bringing the transit service that is needed out to the suburban 416. And that is rapid transit.
I think if we see LRT like Edmonton, that is fully grade separated, crossing arms, etc. People will jump on it. But Transit City is not “modern lrt”.
LikeLike
I’ll try to answer Ray Kennedy’s questions about how we are paid (although after almost eight years, I still don’t fully comprehend my own pay stubs!).
If Steve will kindly indulge me with what could become a long answer, I will try to be as concise as possible and use as little “in-house” terminology as possible (but I will offer explanations as to what some of it means).
Report requirements and travel time are covered on a long section in the contract (Article II Section 8). Report time is paid to every operator as 15 minutes per day at the basic rate. You are required to show up for work a minimum of 10 minutes before your shift actually starts. Travel time is also paid at the regular rate. This section runs 2 and a half pages in the contract and gets quite complicated in determining how travel time is agreed upon and calculated (different times allowed for weekday periods and for weekends and holidays) based on transit travel from garage (or carhouse) to relief point.
Overtime is also covered and is paid at 1.5 times regular rate for all accumulated work over eight actual working hours.
There are also Spread Allowances and Limits.
For Two Piece Crews
— time worked in excess of ten and a half hour spread — an allowance of half time for a total of one and one-half time will be paid.
— time worked in excess of 12 hour spread — an allowance of full time for a total of double time will be paid.
The spread limits are also stated:
— normal week days 12.5 hours
— normal weekday crews finishing after 8:29 PM 11.5 hours
— Saturdays, Sundays, & Holidays 12 hours
I had previously mentioned “Late In” (also known as Delay Time).
This is just a brief overview, but it puts in perspective that I can sign crews that can pay as much as 11 hours daily because of long platform time (actual driving time) plus all of the allowances that go along with it. However, the reality is that I don’t typically sign crews that pay much more than 9 hours because I don’t like to be driving for extremely long periods of time because it is extremely tiring and hard on my back. There are many other allowances that make up the pay, but I don’t really have a full understanding of how they are calculated — I just accept the money without too many questions. And for those who are curious, the hourly rate at the top rate (after 2 years) is $29.43 per hour.
LikeLike
I have to agree with you Mike, having just moved to Alberta I have ridden both the Calgary and Edmonton LRT. If the TTC would just build their LRT in a similar manner I don’t think we would have this problem. The TTC is too fixated on the middle of the road right of way.
i.e. There no reason why the Eglinton LRT can’t run on the south side of Eglinton between Don Mills and Brentcliffe.
LikeLike
I would like to address Stephen Cheung’s comment about “the Union has its fingers in a lot of pies at the TTC. They have a say on how workers are scheduled, how they are deployed, when and where they can have their breaks, etc.”.
This is actually a common misconception. The union actually has no final say on the above issues. These issues are negotiated between the union and the management. I will quote from the current contract (Article I Section 8, Management and Discipline):
“Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the management, supervision and control of the Commission’s operation and the direction of the working force remains an exclusive Management function. This right of Management shall, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, include the right to plan, schedule and direct and control operations, to study or introduce new or improved methods, equipment or facilities; to maintain or establish new or improved rules and regulations covering the operation of the system, …”.
The Union executive is consulted by Management prior to any of the above taking place. The failure of the Management to consult with the Union was the direct cause of the 2006 walkout. The Management plan as implemented at that time violated the seniority rights and job bidding process that is outlined elsewhere in the contract.
The operations branch and the service planning department establish the crews that we select. By establishing the crews, management controls the scheduling, deployment of workforce, when and where breaks are taken, etc. To sit down and read through our contract is a sure cure for insomnia for those that aren’t covered by it, I would imagine. However, in a historical context, it is actually quite fascinating because it is an evolving document having its origins in the first contract signed between ATU113 and the Toronto Railway Company in 1893. The bulk of the contract covers working conditions (such things as spread limits for operators and one of my favorites that applies to the garage and carhouse maintenance employees: “Five minutes shall be given twice daily at lunch time and before leaving work in which to wash up” as well as “The Commission shall when practicable supply suitable lunch and wash basin rooms, provided with sufficient lockers and keys at all shops, carhouses and garages.” The current agreement is 280 pages long, with 90 percent of it covering items like I have mentioned. Only about 10 percent of it deals with wages and benefits.
In addition to the contract, there are many Letters of Agreement covering many issues outside of the contract signed between the Union and the Management. We are also covered by the Commission’s many rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. Finally, Steve’s comment at the end of Stephen’s post says it all. I personally know several employees who have received commendations for going above and beyond, but who were also disciplined for the same action. As an example: the operator stopped his vehicle and waited for a group of senior citizens to make their way to the vehicle from the front entrance of the Seniors’ Home. However, there was a complaint lodged about this by another passenger on the bus who missed their connecting bus at the intersection 3 stops ahead.
LikeLike
“i.e. There no reason why the Eglinton LRT can’t run on the south side of Eglinton between Don Mills and Brentcliffe.”
Well, you’d have to cut off that new housing development from access to Eglinton. And you’d mess up that on-ramp leading to the Celestica campus.
But anyway, why should the LRT run on the south side of Eglinton? There’s only one signalized intersection on that entire stretch and it’s at Leslie St., where trains are going to have to stop anyway. What’s the benefit?
LikeLike
@Mike: But LRT can be considered proper transit for the suburbs. In fact, it’s conceivable that a subway would be worse for a suburban neighbourhood because:
-Subways have wider stop spacing (usually 2km for suburban routes) because of the stations’ high capital and operating costs, and only benefits those living within 500 metres of a station.
-Those living between stations will have to continue to rely on a surface bus route to get them to the station, and the bus service is usually reduced greatly. Either that, or they would drive to the station.
-Land use activity will benefit only areas around stations, and will do nothing to attract businesses, services, or other amenities too far between stations.
LikeLike
Steve and others here would frown on that kind of LRT because it’s too “subway like”. Still, it would be nice to see true LRT routes in Toronto that are 50% exclusive ROW and 50% semi-exclusive, but for some reason, full exclusivity of light rail in a ROW (either elevated, underground, or in a railway corridor) goes against the streetcar “fetish”.
Steve often gripes about ICTS, but in 1981, and I remember this like it was yesterday, ICTS was classified as a “light rail system”. Now, it’s not? What if we take Bombardier’s Primove streetcars that take power from a center rail … they’re still light rail, even if we run them in an exclusive corridor for part of the route and semi-exclusive or even mixed-traffic corridors the rest of the way. I just don’t agree that ICTS is a heavy rail system because it has a third rail and can’t run in the middle of a street.
Steve: ICTS was called “LRT” in a classic example of Orwellian newspeak. If we tell the lie often enough, especially given that nobody knew (or knows) what “LRT” is, we can use the term to mean anything we want. “ALRT” stood for “Advanced LRT”, but that didn’t make it true LRT, only good marketing. At least in the Docklands, in London, they are honest enough to call it a “Light Railway” in recognition of the smaller cars and structures as compared with full scale tube or commuter rail operations. But it still can’t have a grade crossing or run on street.
As for what sort of line would be “acceptable” to me, well, I’ve always supported the “SRT” being “LRT” because that’s what it was supposed to be, all the way to Malvern. What gets me really frothing is the premise that complete grade separation is the only possible implementation, and in response I tend to say “prove it”. You may be interested to know that I was one of the strong advocates of the Eglinton LRT being underground through the central part of the line even though others in the Mayor’s office were unsure of this.
If you’re going to make offhand comments about what I may or may not find acceptable, you could at least bother to find out what I have actually supported in the past rather then assuming I am just another drooling streetcar fan.
LikeLike
“Gord says: November 26, 2010 at 10:51 pm
I’ll try to answer Ray Kennedy’s questions about how we are paid (although after almost eight years, I still don’t fully comprehend my own pay stubs!).”
Thanks again Gord for this further explanation. Sure sounds like a complicated method of pay and a nightmare to schedule operators. Must be something to keep track of as far as crew dispatching and time payment. I speak from the perspective of someone familiar with Collective Agreements who once was heavily involved in similar situations having been a railway crew dispatcher and wage claim handler.
LikeLike
“If you’re going to make offhand comments about what I may or may not find acceptable, you could at least bother to find out what I have actually supported in the past rather then assuming I am just another drooling streetcar fan.”
Well, personally, I’m tired of hearing about the evils of ICTS. Given that the Finch, Sheppard, and Eglinton LRT lines are all disconnected with their own carhouses, and given that the Transit City lines will operate with different vehicles than the downtown network, and finally, given that the TTC will not interline the SRT with Sheppard or extend a converted SRT in a semi-ROW, tell me … where where WHERE is your cost or service justification in closing that line down for several years to convert it to “LRT” when it can be upgraded to ART-2 in less than a year? There is none, except to satisfy some kind of purist streetcar philosophy. In Vancouver, ICTS is praised, but here, it’s considered toxic. Now there are even calls to waste a billion dollars to somehow convert it to a subway, which is just as foolish. Why? It operates just like a subway now. Oh, there’s that bloody transfer at Kennedy I forgot … well isn’t that too bad. There’s also a transfer at St. George which isn’t supposed to be there but we don’t hear anybody complain about that. I’m not just taking LRT advocates to task on the SRT, but subway advocates as well. I don’t think that closing that line down for years is in the public’s best interest.
Steve: The TTC is less confident of an under-one-year ART-2 conversion for the SRT than they were originally because more of the structures require modification than they originally estimated. As for the TC lines and carhouses, you have omitted the north-south routes that would have connected the system together. Given its size, multiple carhouses would have been needed, and they were intended to serve multiple routes. By comparison, if the TTC had not been extraordinarily lucky with the huge block of land at Wilson, they would have required more carhouses on the subway system, a need that will definitely arise if there is significant subway expansion.
In Vancouver, ICTS had a number of important advantages including an almost read-made route and a tunnel under downtown. They have avoided the blight of elevated construction by staying off of main streets, a scheme the Vancouver system does not share with many of the original ICTS proposals for Toronto that would have blighted the city with guideways and stations over major intersections. Artists’ renderings of ICTS always showed it as a light, “airy” structure, always in profile in a way that minimized its visual effect. A report on station structural needs was kept deep under wraps, although it didn’t take a genius to figure out what one would have to look like.
The SRT is a “Vancouver”-type implementation staying almost entirely to existing rights-of-way and avoiding an elevated-over-the-street precinct except in an area that has no pedestrian circulation.
LikeLike
Steve: This sort of calculation is voodoo economics regardless of which side of the subway/LRT argument one might be on. Metrolinx actually uses higher uplift values for LRT because it’s on the surface and stations are closer together.
I find this hard to believe. The sort of street-median LRT you are talking is slower due to frequent stop spacing and traffic signal delays, and has lower capacity than subways, so I doubt it that LRT would increase property values more than subways assuming that we are comparing street-median LRT with subways with reasonable (e.g. 1km) stop spacing. You see far more development along the Yonge subway than you do on the St. Clair streetcar. The largest increase in property values comes from grade-separated or mostly grade-separated rail (i.e. subways, high-frequency regional rail, the proposed Scarborough LRT conversion) which has high capacity and high speed.
Steve: Yonge and St. Clair are not directly comparable. Yonge has been a major route through the city since its inception and is a natural focus for development. St. Clair already has high density from Bathurst to Yonge where it would be hard to separate the effect of the streetcar from the two subway stations. It will take many years to see what effect the new zoning for St. Clair west from Bathurst has.
Conversely, there is lots of development along King and, more recently, along Queen that is nowhere near a subway. The attraction in this corridor is the nearness to downtown and the availability of much land (old industrial grounds) ripe for redevelopment.
As I have often pointed out, there are many stations along the BD subway that have no local development to speak of at all. As and when this does happen, the subway will focus development in a different way from a streetcar line, although the close station spacing could mask this effect compared with, for example, the Yonge line north of Eglinton. It would be hard to build any new development on Bloor or Danforth much more than a five minute walk from the subway simply because there are so many stations (and secondary entrances too).
LikeLike