Much discussion of improved service has talked about bus riders in the suburbs who have long trips and whose bus routes lost peak service when the crowding standards were rolled back in 2012.
Peak period crowding standards had never been improved for streetcars because there were no spare vehicles, and so there was nothing to roll back. However, over past decades, that shortage of streetcars limited peak service in a way that the bus system didn’t have to deal with. This was compounded by two factors:
- The TTC opened a new Spadina-Harbourfront line without increasing the fleet. This was possible because service cuts on the early 1990s left Toronto with “spare” streetcars.
- The project to buy new streetcars dragged on for years thanks both to the embrace of 100% low floor technology, and the obstructions posed by Mayor Ford to streetcar and LRT plans in general.
Between 1998 and 2014, the total number of streetcars scheduled for the peak periods has risen only 10%, and there is no headroom for further growth with the existing fleet. Indeed, service quality is compromised by vehicle failures, and the scheduled service may not all get out of the carhouse.
This year, the TTC will finally take delivery of the first “production” vehicles in its new fleet, and claims that service will operate as of August 31, 2014 on 510 Spadina with the new cars. Whether the line will convert 100% to the new fleet in one go remains to be seen.
The TTC Fleet Plan contains no provision for improving service on any streetcar route beyond the higher capacity that new cars will provide. This will come only as the new fleet rolls out line-by-line and some routes will wait until late this decade to see more capacity (and even then with less frequent service). Existing cars would be retired at a rate that matches or exceeds the new fleet’s ability to replace service, and would also eliminate any spare capacity for growth on lines running older cars.
This is what passes for responsible planning in an organization that claims a dedication to “customer service”.
This article looks at each streetcar route in turn and at a possible revised fleet plan that would make provision for short term improvements as the new fleet arrives.
Service Levels Past and Present
The following table lays out the level of service and vehicle assignments to the streetcar routes in October 1998 and April 2014. The route-by-route discussion draws on this table, but on a summary basis rather than all of the gory details.
19982014_StreetcarServiceComparison
511 Bathurst
In 1998, the Bathurst car operated with ALRVs except on Sundays. On a capacity basis, service in 2014 is the same as or lower than in 1998 except on Sundays.
506 Carlton
Service on Carlton in 2014 is generally less frequent than in 1998 with a few exceptions: weekday midday and early evening, and Saturday late evening.
505 Dundas
Service on Dundas in 2014 is less frequent than in 1998 except for weekend afternoons and evenings.
504 King
The service design on King is unusual among streetcar routes because of the behaviour of its AM peak. There is a base service running between Dundas West and Broadview Stations to which trippers are added over parts of the route that effectively halve the headway when and where they operate. Some of the trippers are ALRVs to add capacity, but most are CLRVs.
The base level of AM peak service in 1998 operated every 3’12” with only 4 trippers added in, but by 2014, the base level widened to 4’00” with 22 trippers. The effect of the trippers is that there is a “wave” of 2’00” headway lasting about 90 minutes that passes Bathurst eastbound between about 7:45 and 9:15am. The number of trippers has grown over the years, and with it, the length of the 2′ wave .
(There is an operational problem with this scheme in that the trippers do not always enter service at the times and locations planned on the schedule, and there are not always vehicles and/or operators available to fill all scheduled trips. This has shown up in reviews of vehicle tracking data I have done for the route.)
Service during the remainder of the day is considerably better than it was in 1998, and this is the only streetcar route where that occurs. Weekend service has also improved substantially.
The effect of new residential, work and school populations along the line is quite evident. As redevelopment of the old city spreads north, we can expect similar pressure on other routes.
501 Queen & 508 Lake Shore
Queen is the only route to operate with a dedicated fleet of ALRVs (at least on paper) although CLRVs can often be found in service when ALRVs fail or are not available even to leave the yard. The result of substitutions is that the capacity actually provided is less than what is scheduled.
Peak service on Queen is almost unchanged from 1998, while off-peak service on weekdays has generally improved. Some weekend periods show improvement while others show cutbacks over the years.
Queen is the one route where the replacement ratio of new low-floor cars for old streetcars will be roughly 1:1 with the result that headways will not change, but capacity will increase. However, the current fleet plan calls for the old ALRVs to be retired well before the new LFLRVs replace them, and there is no provision for switching the line to CLRV operation on shorter headways to compensate. TTC management wants to get rid of the ALRVs as quickly as possible, but has not planned for the consequences. I will discuss this later in the article.
502 Downtowner & 503 Kingston Road Tripper
Service on Kingston Road from Queen to Victoria Park is provided on weekdays by these two routes, of which the 503 only operates in peak periods. Evenings and weekends, the 22A Coxwell bus operates (as the Kingston Road Coxwell car did until 1966), and there is actually better service on the 22A than there is on the streetcar at midday.
During peak periods, the two routes are scheduled to head into downtown on a blended 6′ headway alternating each route with the 502s going along Queen to McCaul Loop and the 503s going via King to York & Wellington. Outbound service in the PM peak on Kingston Road can be quite spotty because there is no attempt to merge the two services, some cars may be missing, and it is not unusual to see short turns.
A related problem is that some 502 trips short turn westbound at Church and return eastbound from Victoria without ever picking up at the busy stops from Yonge westward. This is a perfect example of operating a route to keep operators on time while denying the customers a reliable service.
The scheduled service for these routes is unchanged from 1998.
512 St. Clair
The St. Clair car in 1998 did not operate on a reserved lane. Service during almost all periods is now more frequent than it once was.
510 Spadina
The Spadina car began operating in July 1997 (the original Harbourfront route was merged into it, and track had not yet opened west of Spadina to Bathurst for the 509 car). Service in 2014 is better in almost all periods than it was in 1998, and Spadina boasts very short headways outside of peak periods.
An Alternative Fleet Plan
The fleet plan proposed in mid-2013 by the TTC presumed that new cars would begin to appear on Spadina late that year rather than at the end of August 2014. (See page 33 of the plan for the route by route roll out details.) The plan proposed that most of the ALRV fleet would have been retired before new cars began to operate on Queen.
This creates an interim period where there would not be enough ALRVs to operate the route, but there would also be a shortage of CLRVs to reschedule Queen with an equivalent capacity service. Only when all of Spadina, Bathurst and Dundas are converted would there be just enough CLRVs to cover the Queen route.
Moreover, dedication of all CLRVs released from the early conversions to replacement of the ALRV fleet, coupled with the speed of CLRV retirements, would leave no headroom for better service on some routes for many years.
The poor reliability of the ALRVs is a major problem for the TTC, but the nine-month delay in rolling out the new cars means that at least one more winter’s operation of the ALRVs is inevitable. There simply won’t be enough CLRVs released by conversions in 2014 to provide equipment for the Queen line at comparable capacity. The TTC should plan for the additional period of ALRV operation and revise its fleet plan so that it better addresses service improvements around the system as a whole.
What follows is an example. It is not included as a definitive plan, and I am quite sure there are many variations that readers will concoct. Please don’t send them to me or leave comments niggling about the way I put this together. The purpose is not to prescribe specifics beyond the following goals:
- Maintain service capacity on routes using ALRVs until there are sufficient new streetcars to convert these routes.
- Improve service by 10% on selected routes during peak periods (by analogy to the proposed improvements on the bus network).
- Provide a worked example that the TTC will have to refute rather than simply saying “it can’t be done”.
This plan assumes delivery of 3 cars/month beginning in April 2014, and it has the following stages:
- By the end of 2014, 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront would be converted. Because Harbourfront now operates with buses and 510 Spadina only operates to King Street, this would release only the CLRVs now operating on Spadina.
- By April 2015, there would be enough new cars to allow conversion of 511 Bathurst. At this point, surplus CLRVs would be redeployed to improve service on Dundas, Carlton and St. Clair, as well as to replace the ALRVs now operating on King. That would permit an improvement of the service on Queen.
- Conversion of Queen to new cars would follow through 2015 and would be about 75% complete by year end. This would ensure that most of the ALRV fleet would be retired before the winter of 2015-16. The conversion would be completed in May 2016.
- Conversion of King to new cars through 2016-17 would be completed by July 2017.
- Dundas, St. Clair, Downtowner, Kingston Road and Carlton would be converted from summer 2017 through fall 2019.
This schedule could be accelerated if the delivery rate from Bombardier is increased as the TTC has stated is possible.
Additional considerations include:
- The timing of a proposed order for a further 60 cars intended mainly for ridership growth.
- The service design for the new Cherry Street branch off of King that will open in mid-2016.
- The timing of a Waterfront East LRT and proposed services both to the Port Lands and an extended Broadview Avenue south to Lake Shore Blvd.
If the TTC is to resume a policy of increased capacity, reduced crowding and more attractive service, this should be done system-wide recognizing the important role of the streetcar network in the old City of Toronto where new development is spreading out along these routes. The fleet plan should reflect a desire to achieve the most possible to improve service for riders present and future.
Steve Munro 
The TTC’s policy on bus substitution for streetcars is to “maintain capacity”. This results in much more frequent service on Lake Shore west of Humber with buses than with streetcars, since the TTC puts out about two buses per scheduled ALRV. While the expansion of a number of schools and colleges in South Etobicoke results in peak loads around the start and finish of class, honestly for most of the time the buses could replace ALRVs 1 for 1 and deliver adequate service — although the shorter headways are always appreciated.
The illogic of the bus substitution seems to be mirrored by the illogic of “capacity replacement” when longer LFLRVs, and articulated buses, are put on routes.
Frequency on Queen needs to increase, even with LFLRVs replacing ALRVs and the (more than occasional) CLRV. In particular, I think the new fleet plan should envisage every Queen car running through to Long Branch, if the TTC won’t do some kind of different route setup. Every other 501 to Long Branch is not good enough, ALRV or LFLRV.
Steve: One of the great ironies of the “Transit City Bus Plan” is that it omitted the streetcar system from its proposed “10 minute network”, and also omitted any route that would “soon” have an LRT line on it. Through these choices, the Queen/Long Branch service, the only streetcar that routinely has worse than every 10 minute service, was not included in the plan. If this is resurrected, then it will be essential that it be a 10 minute surface plan, not just a “bus” plan.
LikeLike
Steve should they not be basing their existing maintenance programs on rolling out larger new cars on Queen as at least a mix of new service? Would it not make sense to introduce at a reasonable number here? As well as trying to extend the life of the ALRVs as much as possible. I understand that King is a busier line, but the current service is based on CLRV, and at least that would maintain service. Also what kind of latent demand do you think would appear be if they did use CLRV at half the headway?
Steve: Spadina was chosen as the first line because it does not require many cars and can show them off with a “big bang” conversion (although that strategy appears to have been abandoned). I agree that the new cars should have gone to the lines which already use the least reliable of the old equipment. If CLRVs replaced ALRVs on Queen, the headways would not be halved, but they should go down to 2/3 of the present value on an equal capacity basis. This would certainly make the service more attractive, although they would go right back up again once the new cars took over completely.
Does this not basically defeat the purpose for many of the riders? Would it not make more sense to forego the schedule a little? This strikes me as very destructive of ridership.
Just a comment Steve on the priorities in the city, and the perceived impossibility of certain schemes. I understand the people believe that Calgary had spare road capacity when they chose the 7th avenue transit/pedestrian mall. However this was at the time quite a busy street to close. However, partly in order to compensate, Calgary has I believe free transit on this portion of the system “fare free zone” (get on and off — as long as you stay inside the transit mall area it is free). Would it not make sense to pick a corridor in Toronto, say King or Queen, and do the same thing, 90 second headway streetcar from say Spadina to Jarvis. King would make sense as road traffic could be pushed onto the adjoining one way streets, however would not address the specific issue of the 502. Allow parking structures to be increased away from the CBD, and encourage transit ridership. This is obviously something that would require time and equipment to implement and something would need to be done to maintain access to all that parking off King street, however, I note that the city seems to react as though it is an impossibility. I would think it would make driving easier in Toronto, as it would likely reduce driving trips in the core to a greater degree than road lanes lost.
Steve: Driving into the core is not the problem. It is taxis and delivery vans that create a major headache. The last thing we need is peripheral parking lots sterilizing large areas from development. We already have lots of parking at various suburban subway stations. Also, your assumption is that there actually is a lot of “local” travel within your proposed downtown zone. I very much doubt this is the case, and the bounds would have to be extended to be a significant benefit.
Where we need to encourage transit ridership is for the longer trips, but we don’t have the capacity to handle them. The midrange will look after itself provided that the service is actually there. Far too many people give up on streets like Queen and just start walking.
LikeLike
There was some talk to have a 10 m headway or better for some important bus routes outside of the rush hour. However, I haven’t heard much about streetcar headways.
The mid-day 502 Downtowner streetcar currently has a 16 m headway. When the 22A Coxwell bus replaces it on Kingston Road, the “worst” headway is Sunday morning, Sunday early evening, and Saturday & Sunday late evening, when its 15 m. The best headway (outside of rush hour) is every 9 m on Saturday afternoon. During rush hour, they get 6 m headways with a combined 502 Downtowner & 503 Kingston Road.
Overall, the TTC should provide 10 m headway service on its streetcar routes, or better.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Thanks once again for keeping us readers updated on the rollout of the new streetcars. One thing that has started to make me concerned is this whole reduced frequency policy that the TTC is steadfast on. More specifically is how fast can a new LFLRV unload and load in comparison to the current ALRVs and CLRVs; how fast can the doors cycle (opening and closing) and how long will it for a LFRV to start moving once the doors are closed? Based on what is seen with the TRs and their delayed door cycles it doesn’t give me much faith that the LFRVs doors are going to be any improvement. This combination of lowered frequency and slow door cycles could possibly lead to even worse service, but of course this is just my uneducated guess. Do you have any thoughts on the impacts of slow/longer doors cycles that might arise when the LFRVs enter service?
Has there been any word/update on the installation of TVMs at certain stops? But also the installation of TVMs on the LFRVs? There doesn’t seem to be much discussions about it; I get the feeling that this has fallen off the table and won’t be noticed until last minute when the TTC panics.
-Jeff
Steve: The TVM project is still underway but there is some concern that the machines (whose design was only recently finalized) may not be ready for service launch at the end of August.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the obvious solution be to start rolling the new cars out onto Queen first, replacing the ALRVs 1-for-1? The whole situation strikes me as if the TTC is more concerned about making its new vehicles look good (running them in a dedicated ROW and on its most up-to-date tracks) than it is with improving or conserving service levels.
Steve: Starting on a small route like Spadina makes sense. Retiring the ALRVs before cars are available to replace them does not. This is a case where two competing interests should have been, but were not resolved.
On an absolute tangent, while we’re talking streetcars, I say that some serious consideration should be given to bringing back the Bay Streetcar. That would take a bunch of pressure off of the Bloor-Yonge and St George transfers for customers inbound on the BD subway and headed for central downtown. There’s only about a kilometre from Bay and Bloor to the non-revenue tracks on Bay between College and Dundas, and another gap of less than half that between Dundas and Queen.
Steve: This has been discussed here at length, and I don’t think it’s a viable option. The Bay bus is busy, but not exactly overloaded, and most of its traffic is bound for the area between Bloor and College. Putting in a streetcar won’t make the transfer any faster, but will add considerable capital expense for small return in new capacity.
And my tangent just spawned another tangent: does anyone know how the new LFLRVs will perform on the Bathurst hill? My understanding is that ALRVs can make it up with a struggle, but that the TTC won’t risk it as if one got stuck it would be tricky to push on that slope, which is why the 512 runs with only CLRVs. If the new cars perform better maybe it would be worth thinking about expanding the 511 service up to St Clair?
Steve: Running the 511 to St. Clair has been discussed many times over past decades. The basic problem is that the demand pattern does not break at St. Clair, but at Bloor. People coming south on Bathurst bus want to go to the BD subway, as to people coming north on the streetcar.
LikeLike
I agree with Byford that Toronto needs to order 60 more streetcars.
LikeLike
Steve, why does the TTC even run streetcars on Bathurst? Why not just have the Bathurst bus continue along the rest of the line? I take this trip fairly often from Eglinton down to King and I haven’t really noticed a benefit to the transfer?
I don’t really feel like capacity issues can fully explain this?
PS If you explained this above and I missed it I apologize.
Steve: The Bathurst car can be very busy when there is something on at the CNE, and the level of service is higher than on the bus route.
Effective this April, the Bathurst bus will run one artic bus roughly half as often as the Bathurst car will run one CLRV. The peak period crowding standards for the two vehicles are almost identical (77 and 74 respectively). Also, whenever I have been at Bathurst Station, people arriving on the bus don’t transfer en masse to the streetcar, but a large proportion go into the subway. As I said in response to a previous comment, Bloor is the logical break point in the two demand patterns, and linking the routes does not make much sense.
LikeLike
To CommutingAgainstTraffic’s point, I’d worry about adding another streetcar route to the mix in St. Clair W station. Many times I’ve seen a backup of 5-6 streetcars waiting for their turn around the loop, and I imagine this would only worsen with 30-metre cars.
Besides, where would the Bathurst bus loop? How would it make a northbound turn on exit from the station ramp? As much as I’d like to be able to ride up Bathurst without transferring, this strikes me as a massive capital investment to upgrade the St. Clair W loop for only aesthetic gain.
LikeLike
According to the March 30 Service Summary, the 510 Spadina uses a maximum at one time: 18 CLRV streetcars and 5 LF buses. Those 18 would get shifted over to other routes once the LFLRV streetcars get rolling.
According to the streetcar fleet plan, they expect to put 12 LFLRVs on the entire 510 by widening the best headway time, which occurs during the mid-day, from 1 m 53 s to 3 m 15 s.
We’ll see if that so-called plan gets adjusted and readjusted to have a better headway. We’ll see by the end of the year.
Steve: The fleet plan makes no provision for repurposing the existing cars running on Spadina. Next month, we will see just how well the claim that bigger vehicles on wider headways provide better service when 7 Bathurst switches over.
LikeLike
Regarding the capacity issue, has the TTC ever looked into the idea of “leap-frog” tracks along the various routes to better manage crowding? By that, I mean sidings at certain points along the routes where a full streetcar can allow an emptier one behind it to jump ahead.
Steve: The amount of space that would require is considerable, and it would only be workable with a parking ban, or integrated into an intersection. Unlike some other systems, the TTC does not run the lead car of a pair semi-express to open up a gap.
LikeLike
Looks like systemwide TTC ridership has grown about 38% since 1998 (392 million was the ridership forecast for that year and 540 million is the ridership forecast for this year). And much of the condo development of the last decade or so has been clustered along streetcar lines — while some of those residents walk or bike, surely the increased density around streetcar routes creates additional demand.
If peak streetcar service has grown only 10% over the same time period, doesn’t that suggest a potentially huge amount of pent-up demand?
Steve: Quite definitely as the change in headways on King for off peak service shows clearly.
LikeLike
The TTC will probably have to supplement some streetcar service with bus service until the fleet and extra 60 cars are in. I would support a higher fare for better service if that is what it takes, but I have seen funding being cut to government services and I imagine it would be some trick to force the poor to pay more for worse service, similar to the cuts to the public libraries, as anyone with enough money will just choose to drive a car than take transit, especially if service is bad enough. : (
LikeLike
Thanks for answering my questions Steve. With regards to the issue of which route to roll out first, seeing as the entire “big bang” plan has kind of been torn up by the delivery/testing delays perhaps the TTC should be revisiting this issue. Just one of the many things I suspect that they should have given more thought to (or considered without preconceptions) regarding the new Bombardier cars.
In a response to another comment you said:
Is this a streetcar-only policy or does it extend to buses as well? Is there a historical or operational reason for that? My experience riding in Vancouver suggests that operators are given leeway to bypass stops when no passenger requests to get off, even if there are people waiting, when there is a bus right behind. I don’t see this happen in Toronto, even when the bus is at/over capacity the driver usually pulls up, open the doors, and tells people on the curb to wait for the next one.
Steve: Some years ago, in response to complaints about pass-ups at stops, the TTC told ops not to do this, and this spilled over into bans on skip-stopping. A related issue is that on a route with branches, skipping a stop can mean that the branch someone is waiting for does not serve the rider. I can’t help feeling that some operational rules at the TTC get into the way of providing better service, but requires a disentangling of issues including scheduling and line management, congestion, transit priority, and rider perception of whether the way service operates benefits them or just solves internal problems for the TTC.
LikeLike
Simple, St Clair West station like they did for years. There used to be a branch of the Bathurst bus which made its way into the station. I believe it was the 7A then the 7E then the 7A. The route was actually split in two at St Clair West in 2008 for work being done along Bathurst resulting in Southbound AND Northbound buses using St Clair West’s loop to turn around.
LikeLike
Pity that no one considered the idea before they did the latest refurbishment work on the bridges over the Don River.
LikeLike
I guess TTC will have to operate bus supplement if they still have any buses around in peak hours by 2015. The Queen car can have some bus trippers between the busiest portion of the route. Or the TTC can do what they do best by leaving people at stops waiting for the next car(s).
On the point of higher capacity vehicles, I’ve been noticing whenever a pair of artics come by on Bathurst, the trailing artic carries a very low number of passengers even in peak hours. Maybe artic buses won’t be that bad on Bathurst after all. (Considering that route management is pretty bad already)
LikeLike
In my ideal world, I would like to have that extended, although perhaps not as a mall, but as a restricted street to Roncesvalles on the west side, to allow entry from both that streetcar, and the Queensway right of way, and on the east to somewhere east of Parliament, ideally to or accross the Don. I expect that to go over like a lead balloon. Also, I have a hard time figuring out street alignments for traffic as I go out that far (Wellington is an issue at Spadina). However, in principle it would be better.
My thought in that area, was mostly to speed the transit through here, and get past the excuses of I need my car, or access to a taxi etc. I was hoping high frequency transit across here would clear the need for taxis on King (as would closing the street to them). I am not calling a cab in this case east bound as I am mounting streetcar that I can see pulling up. Your point with regards to moving people out of the area is apt, however, in this case I am focused on the streetcar rider and the potential streetcar rider who would likely reside in the shoulder areas, and currently is forced to walk as you say or ride streetcar.
As to the long range transit rider, I would argue that this will be hard to address until some form of DRL is built. Restricting the centre lane of King out to Roncesvalles would make it easier to get to the Bloor line, but does not really address the trip to Broadview. Restricting centre lane of King to Queen, or better still running track to the end of King and across on its own bridge to Broadview might reduce short turns however, and help fully use the capacity at Broadview, as it would reduce short turns and be closer time wise to the Yonge to Bloor to Danforth ride. However, I suspect that this notion would be seen as an attack on cars, especially as it would require the removal of parking along all of King.
This however, would be at best a tourniquet on an arterial bleed in terms of the need for a DRL.
Steve: It may come as a shock, but King Street is a residential street for much of its length, and your cavalier conversion of it to a transit mall would never achieve lift-off. Long distance trips belong on the subway and GO system. The surface capacity is needed for the existing and growing demand as the old city’s residential density grows.
LikeLike
“Streetcar Riders Count Too”? Scarborough Riders Count Too. I will accept a cheap Scarborough LRT only if assurances can be given that no further subways will be built in the subway rich downtown. The people from in and around downtown are so desperate to build LRT in Scarborough (the LRT that most of them will NEVER use) so that they can use the money saved from it to build the Downtown Relief Line / DRL that will benefit them directly.
Steve: That is a complete mischaracterization of everything I have been working for over many years. Scarborough could have had a network of LRT lines, but instead will at best have one subway that does not reach much of Scarborough, and most riders will still be stuck on the bus. The Scarborough LRT would have been completely on its own right-of-way and would have run eventually out to Malvern (it would have done this decades ago but for Queen’s Park foisting the SRT technology on Toronto).
There are times I think, meanly, that Scarborough really does deserve to get nothing, but then I remember that there are many, many people in Scarborough who want better transit and don’t agree that the subway is the answer they’re looking for.
LikeLike
It’s amazing how the downtown streetcar network, despite its centrality to our transit system and historical potential, has been so systematically neglected.
The mayoral candidate who can present a credible plan to finally improve the performance and capacity of our streetcar lines, especially those in mixed traffic, will have my vote.
A good start would be to seriously consider some of Steve’s recommendations for a new roll-out plan, to retain some existing vehicles a bit longer than planned in order to fill in service gaps, and to push very hard for an acceleration of new vehicle delivery.
Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I find those points that convincing in regards to the Bathust line. You’re definitely right that most ridership goes to Bloor (or elsewhere) but by eliminating the transfer it might encourage more people to stay on the line.
It seems like there’d be an easy opportunity here to unify that line and free up some streetcar capacity … and would it be that difficult to add extra buses during CNE events?
Also, (slightly off topic) where can you find ridership statistics that are more than three years old? Thanks
Steve: The system is short of both buses and streetcars, and so it’s a moot point whether “unifying” the lines solves anything. What it will most certainly do is subject the riders south of Bloor to the erratic service now provided to the north by the 7 Bathurst bus.
Just because there might be a through trip does not mean there will be greater through demand, and you will probably damage service quality overall by linking the routes together.
LikeLike
Funny how North York is always exempt from demands like this even though all subway construction to date since the RT opened has been centred there and Rob Ford is pushing for a fourth subway line there.
LikeLike
Steve, when the new streetcars are all delivered will there be a surplus of displaced CLRV’s that can be used to increase service?
Steve: No. By that time the CLRVs will all have been retired. The TTC has plans to buy 60 more new cars for growth that would be delivered after the current batch.
LikeLike
Where do you in fact think that people in Scarborough want to go? Is there an incredible need for travel to McCowan & Lawrence that the rest of us can’t see?
The majority of travel comes into the downtown core. The towers are there. The condos are there. The density is there.
What if all the subways downtown closed, and Scarborough residents were forced to take a bus from Kennedy station to Queen & Yonge.
Think about it. A section of one line runs through downtown, and one line, that happens to have two legs, runs through downtown.
Surprise. They’re both crammed.
Steve: And, I might say, crammed with many riders who do not originate downtown. Otherwise, the lines would be empty until they reached Eglinton southbound, Main westbound and Jane eastbound.
LikeLike
That is why I was suggesting that in the area beyond Spadina in the west it not be mall, but rather a restricted access street, with centre lane reservation.
Create space for transit, and for local drivers, but not through traffic. I was not suggesting that the entire length be transit mall. As I said “I would like to have that extended, although perhaps not as a mall, but as a restricted street to Roncesvalles on the west side” Also note I said ” I expect that to go over like a lead balloon”. I understand the perception, however, I do believe it would create a better local residential environment, as it would reduce through traffic. What I was, and am, expecting to sink this really would be the removal of parking along the entire length of the street that would be required. I am fully aware of the number of people who live on or immediately off King on the West side. I would also note however, the people who would have the largest improvement in transit would be these people. They would enjoy a much smoother ride into the core, and the TTC would have far fewer excuses for not maintaining the appropriate headway.
My impression has been the conversion to a heavier mix of residential happens very close to Spadina in the west and east of Jarvis in the east does it not? And yes there would still need to be access for the periodic vehicle even in the mall area, however I believe that this could be restricted without causing damage to the residents or business. I am under the impression that many of these buildings also have access to side streets immediately to the North or south of them.
Also the Liberty Village area continues to expand, and is a heavily transit dependent area. This type of proposal would especially improve their transit as well. I would also note that the people who are most likely to be taking advantage of this extra lift to Bloor are really Parkside area residents, who would not actually board a subway, some are now likely riding Spadina or Yonge to Bloor, the most overloaded section.
I would overall expect a net reduction in overall traffic on King on this basis (thus better for the residents on King itself). What I think you should really be giving me shit about is the impact on residents of the adjoining streets, where a portion of this traffic is likely to end up (and to date somewhat quieter). The largest transit impact should be for the shoulder area residents, those who live on or close to this line, with some secondary and tertiary advantages for the outlying areas. Some of these benefits will come from reducing the riders choosing to go around via Yonge and Bloor/Danforth.
I also said: “Your point with regards to moving people out of the area is apt, however, in this case I am focused on the streetcar rider and the potential streetcar rider who would likely reside in the shoulder areas, and currently is forced to walk as you say or ride streetcar. ”
and
As to the long range transit rider, I would argue that this will be hard to address until some form of DRL is built.
Steve: There was a so-called transit lane on King for years and it was totally ignored. TPS had no interest in enforcing it, and the ban on parking/stopping simply didn’t work.
As for Liberty Village and the area west of Bathurst in general, you really need to get out more. The tight grid does not continue as far west as the restricted lane you want to implement. Planning based on “being under the impression” is rather like Rob Ford’s understanding of streetcars and LRT.
LikeLike
At St. Clair W. Station, would it be technically feasible to replace concrete wall beside the through eastbound track to platform space, similar to what is being done at Union?
This would free up the existing space for westbound 512s.
Steve: Not really. This would require a separate access between the mezzanine level and the new platform, and would make connections between the bus routes and eastbound streetcars rather roundabout.
We really need to avoid proposing heroic “solutions”. Union Station is a much, much, much busier place than St. Clair West.
LikeLike
This seems weird. The vast majority of employment downtown is south of Bloor so wouldn’t this mean that most people who work downtown who use the 7 bus would have to transfer twice? Somehow I suspect that the real reason is that people are too lazy to walk the short distance between St. Clair/Bathurst and St Clair West station so few people transfer to the subway there.
Steve: Lazy? When there was a direct service from Bathurst into St. Clair West, it was not well used. Most riders wanted to go to the Bloor subway.
LikeLike
One reason I believe for doing Spadina first is that the number of TVMs needed will be relatively small for the number of passengers carried. It will give a good place to test the machines out but as there are examples of them all over the world you would think that the TTC could have adapted and existing machine. Hell they could use the machines that issue parking stickers. It gives out a sheet of paper with time on it. It could be adapted to also give class of fare. They use them to sell tickets on the Island ferries.
Scarborrower. If you think that the majority of subway riders downtown are downtowners then you are mistaken unless you put the borders of downtown a long ways from the downtown. The DRL would help riders from the east of Toronto, that is old East York and Scarborough, a lot more than it would help those pampered downtowners.
LikeLike
I believe the TTC will introduce Proof of Payment on 510 when converted to the new LFLRV which could speed up loading.
Would POP be implemented on streetcars on all other lines at that time?
At the subway stations with streetcars in fare-paid zones (Spadina and eventually Bathurst, St. Clair, St. Clair West, etc.) , are we going to have a mix of streetcars on POP and buses without?
POP may be useful on bus routes, especially those with articulated buses.
Steve: The TTC has not gone into all the details of the POP rollout, but given that Presto and other automated fare vending equipment will come into full use long before all of the new cars are here, it is self-evident that the POP rollout will be faster than the LFLRV rollout. The intent is to move to all door loading with the LFLRVs because the operator has nothing to do with collecting fares or checking transfers.
LikeLike
Steve:
The centre transit lane signs are still there on King Street, but completely unenforced. At a “community meeting” I once asked if the signs could be removed or else the restriction could be enforced. I was laughed at. I think it is very wrong to have rules that are unenforced. If they are silly rules, eliminate them. If not, enforce them.
Michael
Steve: The signs are still there, but the scope of King that they once covered was considerably longer — all the way west to Dufferin.
LikeLike
Yes the fact that the tight grid ends, was another reason in my mind that King needed to be only a restricted access *Street* (not lane). It would mean that they could not go west or east past a given major intersection without going around. Your point with regards to not being able to enforce no stopping areas, is a good one. And here yes you clearly have a point. I try too forget, as it irritates me, that I have had the experience too often of being caught behind people stopping in Parkdale with a car parked directly across the street, while they take their sweet time waiting for someone to come out of the house, or deliver pizza, or take bags in, and there is never quite enough room to squeeze through (I thought this only happened to me). So of course you are right the centre lane would still needs to be accessible, meaning no true transit reservation is possible only a white painted zone, which as you have pointed out is ignored.
If the trips are largely fairly local (ie not avoiding Lakeshore and Gardiner) then no question Steve this would be a traffic disaster, however, I merely suggest, not implement. Here, I will reverse a sarcastic comment you made on a previous note: Transit entitled to have empty streets, green lights, and opens lanes onto eternity, cars are merely an obstruction.
LikeLike
Although Steve may have knowledge of a better source, [there is] a TTC page that has a variety of ridership and other fun statistics back to 2007.
Steve: Sorry about that. I forgot to reply to that part of the comment. The TTC ridership numbers used to show up in the annual reports on requests for route changes. In the early days I copied them by hand into a spreadsheet. Later, when they were in electronic format, it was easier to edit the text into an importable format. Most recently, the route by route info has appeared on the Transit Planning page. The info has been published in various formats going back to 1976.
Using that same reference page from TTC.ca, the statistics seem to bear out that, compared to the Scarborough RT, which at 6.4 km long (one way) carried 4,666,691 passengers in 2012, while during the same year, the “[E]stimated daily usage on [the] average business day [of the] 504 King (streetcar) [was] 56,700.”
This equates to 14,742,000 (almost 15 million, not counting weekends/holidays) of the total streetcar passenger count of 58,657,125 or about 1/4 of the total streetcar ridership and about *3.2 times* the number of SRT riders. That’s just the King streetcar, by the way, as it trundles its way from Dundas West Station along Roncesvalles and King up to Broadview Station.
So just based on numbers alone, a logical person might say – by the numbers – that the folks who are crammed like sardines on the King Street car might actually deserve a subway more than the folks riding the RT and that, again, based on the numbers an LRT might work just fine with part of the $1 billion dollars currently going to the Scarborough subway-subway-subway earmarked to extend the LRT up to Malvern to serve even MORE people in Scarborough. The LRT is only “cheap” because Rob Ford (who only appears on public transit to campaign, never to ride to work), Karen Stintz, Glenn De Baeremaeker and some provincial politicos convinced enough Scarberians that LRT is “second-class” and that “Poof!” with fairy dust the money would just appear…. [Sigh!]
LikeLike
And, conversely, Scarborough (with its three subway stops plus five other RT stops) is being treated unfairly, whereas Etobicoke’s four stops (let’s include Old Mill and be generous) are apparently plenty.
Steve: Old Mill is west of the river, and so is in Etobicoke.
LikeLike
I know you are hoping not to entertain dozens of permutations, but I was curious about a couple of elements that deal more with underlying principles or strategies.
There are a couple of intervals in your chart where CLRVs and LFLRVs would operate concurrently on individual routes (Queen; King). Wouldn’t this cause scheduling or loading problems? (If you schedule a headway based on average vehicle capacity, you end up with overloaded CLRVs. Of course we already have overloaded CLRVs when service bunches up…) I thought one of the principles was that a route should be changed over all at once if possible.
Also — is there a reason that St. Clair would wait until the second last interval?
Steve: The TTC plans to do a rolling transition to the new cars and I simply followed their pattern. I believe that the basic idea is that new cars would be used first on the runs that stay out all day, and eventually there would be enough “new” runs that this would match the target for the number of new cars on the line. At that point, a new schedule would go into effect. And so, basically, the CLRVs should always be carrying CLRV headways and if anything might benefit from following a larger new car.
St. Clair is at the end because that’s where the TTC put it (you can see their rollout plan in the document I linked). My major change in the sequence was to shift Dundas back a few years to free up CLRVs mainly for King to begin the ALRV retirements.
LikeLike
As someone who lives at Bathurst and St. Clair, I find the transfer between the 7 and the 511 to be quite annoying. But I understand it, and I don’t think the people criticizing it get the demand pattern.
I’m often trying to get to the west end, so it would be useful for me if they ran through. I’ll walk 10 minutes to Ossington instead of 3 to Bathurst just to avoid the occasional painfully long transfer at Bathurst Station. But when I use the 7 I am in the significant minority when I transfer to the 511. The majority of people are headed to the Bloor line. I’m sure some people would transfer at a streetcar south if it ran through, but I doubt it would be more than 1 in 5.
I’m also sure very few people are using the 7 bus as a way to get to the financial district. If that was your destination, you would be take the closest east/west bus to the YUS line and transfer to it at a spot where you get a seat. You should only take the 7 bus if you are trying to get somewhere in the west end of downtown, or further west on Bloor.
Also, on top of demand, you would be adding a few minutes to each route to get them in and out of St Clair West Station. On busy routes that is going to add up.
When the crosstown is complete and if the expected development follows, I could understand making a case for breaking at Eglinton because it shortens the longer route… if there were streetcar tracks. But there are aren’t tracks and there is a bridge on Bathurst, so that is just fantasy.
(I do suspect the fact that not a single route between Coxwell and Bathurst runs through the Bloor-Danforth line helps make downtowners think of it as a wall. But the TTC running the 511 to St. Clair isn’t going to fix that.)
Steve: The historical reason why many routes stop at Bloor-Danforth is, of course, the location of the old City boundary. To the east, routes on Main, Coxwell, Pape and Broadview end at Danforth. To the west, the Dundas car stayed south of the CPR tracks, while the St. Clair car was just barely within the City when it got to Keele. Operations north of St. Clair were contracted for York Township on Weston and on Oakwood.
Streetcars in Forest Hill? What are you thinking! There was even a thought of putting trolley buses along Eglinton west of Avenue Road once upon a time (and there was a small amount of overhead), but the good burghers of Forest Hill (then an independent principality with airs that Scarborough could only dream of having) would have none of it.
The Bathurst Street bridge, by the way, was built to take streetcars. It is a twin of the Leaside Bridge, and they were both built with extra steel for streetcar tracks that were never installed, and even sported TTC overhead poles until they were widened. That widening was possible because of the extra steel.
LikeLike
This lack of enforcement is all too typical of Toronto – at one time several intersections on King (King & Jarvis being an example) had yellow ‘cross-hatching’ lines painted on the roadway to remind drivers that it is illegal to enter an intersection if you can’t leave it. A year or so ago the neighbourhood association (SLNA) asked the City to repaint the lines – which are still visible. The answer: the police never really enforced the law so painting lines was a waste of money. As has been noted here many times, transit, and actually all traffic, would move far faster if existing laws were fully enforced and transit would move far better if we had proper transit priority.
LikeLike
Let’s take this logic to its natural extension. I expect Scarborrower will support this suggestion, and get the support of all other Scarborrowers that feel the same way to support it as well:
Let’s do a test that deprives “subway rich downtown” from any subway service for a month. For one month, and Scarborrower can choose which month, the TTC will close all subway stations south of Bloor Street, except Union (because Union serves non-downtowners who arrive on GO or even VIA). All trains will run non-stop between Bloor-Yonge and Union as well as between St. George and Union.
That will show the “subway rich downtown” without bothering anyone else!
Steve: While we are at it, there are several off ramps from expressways that clearly exist only to serve downtowners, and they should be closed at the same time.
LikeLike
Steve, I applaud your rollout proposal but I have 1 question. More streetcars on the road beginning April 2015 also means more streetcar drivers. What is the lead time for the TTC to hire and train these personnel? Do they typically draw internally from those driving buses? This and other related costs would have to be in the next budget cycle.
Steve: That is exactly the point. The 2015 budget cycle actually starts in July 2014, and at the very least, optional scenarios for the new Mayor and Council need to be on the table. By the way, note the peak vehicle counts I have included in my plan. Today, there are 223 peak vehicles on streetcar routes including the 18 buses on Harbourfront. For April 2015, I am still at 223 and peak at 225 in mid-2016. This is not exactly a huge increase in streetcar operators. Far more, in fact, will be needed to implement the 10% service increase proposal for major bus routes that would add 100 peak vehicles.
I have sat through enough debates and foot-dragging surrounding the service improvements for the Ridership Growth Strategy to know that there are manpower constraints (among other things), and took this into account.
My main concern is that the TTC not be allowed to simply say “we can’t do it”, but rather be given the chance to say “we can do it this way” to improve service as soon as possible. Quite bluntly, if we can spend $12-million a year to keep the SRT running until 2023 so a few politicians in Scarborough feel safer in their seats, we can spend some money on the rest of the system.
LikeLike
@ Jeff – regarding your comment regarding Calgary, 7th avenue isn’t used as a transitway (LRT & bus use it) b/c of spare road capacity… it’s gridlocked during rush like any other downtown “core” of a large city. It’s simply that moving 300,000+ people per weekday on their 2 LRT lines that run through it (plus countless others on bus that also use 7th ave) is much better use of a the avenue than the alternative of it being just another road for cars/etc. (& + or minus a billion less than tunnelling, which allowed funds to be allocated to more KM of track, more accessible boarding, & a better visibility as an “alternative” to driving)
Transitway such as this bring the concept of King being substantially focussed/allocated/prioritised to moving streetcars seem normal & sensible to someone such as myself who has travelled a lot (often on jobs featuring extended inner city stays) & used a *lot* of transit systems.
LikeLike
And then you have York where they barely have access to subways with only two stations along the eastern boarder. Also, they had their subway killed off and filled in 20 years ago and are now getting a “second class LRT” which is deemed good enough for them.
Frankly, this whole sense of entitlement to other people’s money that “subway demanders” in Scarborough have is starting to get on my nerves.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the lousy subway service to Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch, Swansea, Weston, Leaside and East York; none of which have a subway through their territory though there are a couple of nearby stations. You are right Nick; no more subways in Toronto, Etobicoke, Scarborough and never again in North York until each of these former towns has at least 2 subway stations entirely with in their former boundaries. Forest Hill doesn’t get any because they wouldn’t allow trolley buses.
LikeLike