Vehicles

by

Buses on Streetcar Routes?

The CBC this morning carried an item reporting that the TTC would begin running buses on streetcar routes to relieve crowding.  Chair Adam Giambrone was quoted as saying that cars don’t get out of the yard due to “safety” problems such as dashboard heaters failing and causing windows to fog up.

Sigh.  That’s this week’s excuse.  Things are getting bad when the best that Giambrone can trot out is that chestnut “safety” that is a catch-all excuse in the same league as “congestion” and “TTC culture”.  The real problem is that the TTC has been hiding reliability problems with the streetcar fleet for years, and needed service improvements don’t show up because they don’t have enough working cars.  The problem has been masked because at least one carline has been under construction for most of the last five years.

Next week, a new schedule comes into play on Queen with less, yes less service than today.  The reason?  The operators need even more layover time (strangely only on weekday schedules but not in the evening), and the TTC comes up with this by stretching the headways.

Management’s refusal to undertake a restructuring of the line, to break it into separate components that don’t have an immense round trip and a corresponding need for layovers, is getting quite trying.  The use of relief crews at Russell Division works in the east end because the carhouse is near the end of the line, but a completely different scheme is needed in the west for Long Branch bound cars.

If we are going to start busing streetcar lines, then let’s stop running inadequate service to handle the demand on the routes.  Stop telling us about average loads that are within standards when news reports include clips of people complaining about huge gaps and crowded cars.

Thanks to inaction on streetcar reliability, riders will have to put up with ongoing problems for three years until the new fleet begins to arrive.  Even that is dependent on funding, and I am not convinced that the streetcar fleet will survive the many demands for new money in Ottawa and Queen’s Park.  Is this the beginning of the end?  A fate like the trolleybus network that was allowed to deteriorate beyond the point of no return?

by

Better Batteries for Hybrid Buses

The TTC’s supplementary agenda for this week includes a report on the settlement of negotiations with Daimler for the problems with the hybrid bus fleet.  Parts of this report are confidential, but the main items of interest for system users are in the public report.

  • The existing fleet of hybrid buses will be converted from lead acid to Lithium-Ion batteries.  This is expected to greatly improve reliability and to reduce fuel consumption by about five percent due to the much lower weight (4,100 vs 1,000 pounds) of the batteries.  (The TTC quotes the weight in pounds.)
  • The 2009 bus order for 130 hybrids will remain in place.
  • The optional 2010 bus order for 120 diesels will proceed.  It should be noted that supplementary Federal funding for “green” bus technology is not guaranteed into 2010.
  • Due to the larger than expected number of vehicles required both for construction projects (e.g. St. Clair) and to compensate for poor hybrid reliability, 52 “retirement-eligible” GM buses will undergo a life extension.  This is expected to add 2 to 3 years to their life.  Buses now out of service will be the first to go through this rebuild so that the active fleet is not further depleted.  This project will cost $3.5-million or about $65K per bus. 

From a budgetary point of view, the total spending remains below the original Capital Budget mainly due to the savings on diesel versus hybrids on the 2010 bus order.

by

Transit City — The Movie

Today’s TTC meeting brought us an update on the various parts of the Transit City plan.  You can read the full report yourself, and there is a quick review of the status of various lines and studies below.

Meanwhile, the TTC is starting a media campaign to tell people about Transit City and about LRT.  You can watch the video on the TTC’s website.  Although it is a breath of fresh air to see the TTC promoting LRT after all these years, there are a few oddities in this piece (the timings where they occur are included below).

  • (0:39) “Work on Transiy City is already well underway.”  Hmmm … a few traffic barriers does not make a construction project.  I wonder why they don’t show the upheaval on St. Clair?  Shortly later we see a new car mockup superimposed on the westbound stop at Yonge Street.
  • (0:55)  “What is Light Rail Transit?”  We learn that LRT is used around the world including, wait for it, in Vancouver!  Er, ah, there’s a heritage streetcar line running with a former BC Electric interurban car, but no LRT.  This is a howling error.  Other cities shown on the world map are many fewer than the actual inventory.
  • (1:15)  “LRT can operate in a street, but has the flexibility to operate underground like a subway.”  LRT advocates will be amused to hear that their chosen mode has the “flexibility” to be just like a subway, when the real issue is the inflexibility and cost of 100% grade separated modes.
  • (1:50) Light rail is bigger than standard streetcars, and allows level boarding from platforms.  It’s nice to hear how LRT is a streetcar, but not a streetcar.
  • (2:10) LRT cars don’t need loops!  Amazing what you can do with modern technology.  See also Kennedy Station Loop.
  • (2:20) All door loading … but wait .. it’s a subway car!
  • (2:38) LRT will be separated from the effects of traffic congestion, not to mention pesky “transit priority” signals if the animation can be believed.
  • (3:32) Streetscaping.  Aside from the gigantic, fast-growing trees (maybe they’re from Vancouver too), note the typical suburban layout with wide setbacks of buildings from the street.  Contrast this with later illustrations of dense suburban redevelopment.
  • (4:05) Transit will be an even better travel alternative.  With a new subway train?  What’s that doing here?

The map of projects reflects the original Transit City announcement because many possible changes are still under study by both TTC and Metrolinx.

Transit City project updates follow the break.

Continue reading →

by

Diesels, Not Hybrids, At Least For Now (Updated)

Updated October 23:  The TTC amended the staff recommendations by adding two clauses, roughly as follows:

  • The TTC should withhold award of the optional 120-bus add-on order for clean diesels with Daimler Buses until the problem with batteries on the existing fleet are resolved.  If this is not done, the TTC should go with an alternative supplier.
  • The TTC should investigate conversion of the 2009 bus puchase from Hybrid to Clean Diesel.  Staff should explore the options for contract termination as well as the impact of the technology change on funding from various sources.

It is unclear how the first point can be achieved given that the cutoff date for exercising the existing contract’s add-on provision is October 31, 2008.

At this point it is clear that the 2010 bus order will be diesel, and there is a strong move to convert the 2009 order as well notwithstanding possible advances in battery technology.

Continue reading →

by

The Economics of Hybrid Buses

The City of Toronto’s Executive Committee agenda for October X contains a report on the City’s Green Fleet Plan for various agencies.  By far the biggest of these is the TTC, and in an accompanying report, we learn just what the economics of the hybrid bus fleet are.

On page 15, the TTC presents a chart showing the fuel efficiency of its fleets, and it is worth noting that fuel consumption per vehicle km is rising at the same time as the average capacity of the vehicles is falling.  This is partly due to the additional systems, notably air conditioning, that are present on newer vehicles.

Of the total fleet, just over a quarter (450 out of 1653) are hybrids, and these consume about 10 percent less fuel than their pure-diesel cousins (based on experience to date).  This implies that the increased fuel consumption on the diesel fleet is even higher, proportionately, than the consolidated figures imply because of the offsetting benefit of the hybrids.

In the longer term, the relative fuel savings of hybrids may rise as they operate on routes with dense, stop-start traffic where the benefit of electric propulsion and battery energy storage will shine.  Nonetheless, there will be a considerable net cost of owning hybrid buses relative to diesels over their lifespan.

The TTC expects to spend $110-million on diesel fuel in 2009.  This includes a saving of $3.6-million for the existing hybrid fleet, and that saving will rise to somewhere around $6-million annually by the time that the fleet is about 50% hybrid (854 out of 1864) in 2011.  That’s a per vehicle saving of  about $7,000 per year.  We do not know yet what savings, if any, on maintenance will accrue to the hybrid fleet.

The capital cost premium for a hybrid bus is about $200,000, and the hybrid saving is only about 3.5% per year on this additional investment.  In time, if the capital cost premium comes down, the cost of fuel goes up, or the average percentage saving across the fleet rises, the numbers will converge and the rate of return will improve.

Meanwhile, it’s a shame we don’t have comparative figures for the cost of trolleybus infrastructure for our major routes.  Two decades ago, the TTC sacrificed its trolleybus system on the twin altars of environmental responsibility and natural gas buses.

Postscript:  The supposed economic advantage of natural gas as a fuel was almost entirely due to the fact that it was not taxed.  A large chunk of the TTC’s annual fuel bill is in tax paid to the Province of Ontario.  Without this tax, the economics of buses in general would be rather different.  Oddly, because the dollar saving from reduced fuel consumption would actually be lower without the tax, the economics of hybrid buses would look even worse if this tax were rescinded.

by

The TTC’s Low-Floor LRV Presentation of August 27, 2008 (Update 2)

The TTC has not published the presentation on their website, and in the interest of having the material in view, I am transcribing it here.  Few pages involve diagrams, and so for the most part I will simply transcribe the text.

Where I comment on the material, I will do so in italics to distinguish my words from the TTC’s.

The pages with diagrams are linked to scanned images.

Update 1 (August 30):  In the post below, I originally said that the chronology did not mention the change from a 70% low floor spec to 100%.  A quibble has been raised on this point.

The original spec had both 70% and 100%, and the change was to remove the 70% option.  The net effect was the same:  any 70% low floor car that might have been proposed was eliminated from consideration.  It remains to be seen whether, in fact, any builder can adapt their designs to Toronto’s track geometry.

Update 2 (September 16):  The full presentation is now available on the TTC’s website.  The links in the post below take you to scanned images on my site.  If you want better resolution, use the TTC copies.

Continue reading →

by

TTC To Discuss New Streetcars with Three Builders (Update 1)

Updated August 29:

At the Commission meeting on August 27, various deputations spoke to the issue of the streetcar contract.  I am not going to attempt to reproduce their presentations and, in some cases, the extensive Q&A sessions that followed, but will give an overview.

The TTC has not yet posted the staff presentation on their website.  If it has not appeared by this evening, I will scan and post my copy along with comments in a second update.

Mario Péloquin spoke for Siemens Canada with a brief presentation.  Siemens, for internal reasons related to their corporate reorganization, had chosen not to bid but is now interested in the streetcar contract.  Péloquin was slightly apologetic for Siemens’ not having emphasized their long-standing presence in Canada and Ontario.  Obviously this is not as a rail car builder, but in the many other aspects of Siemens operations.

An Alstom representative, who did not expect to be called on, and who has only about half a year’s experience with the company, spoke briefly indicating his company’s interest in the contract.  It would be useful if Alstom can find someone with more depth and credibility the next time they show up.

Skoda was not present, and TTC CGM Gary Webster said that because they chose not to respond after the RFP cancellation, they are no longer at the table.   Whether Skoda accepts this situation remains to be seen.

Representatives of the Toronto Labour Council and of the Canadian Auto Workers (who represent the Bombardier Thunder Bay plant) spoke of the importance of Canadian content in any contract.  This is a difficult issue because so many subsystems for rapid transit cars are built offshore, and even the carbodies would likely be fabricated in existing foreign plants and shipped to Canada for final assembly.

The TTC and Ontario already have a 25% Canadian content rule, and the Commission passed a motion indicating that they would like prospective builders to work toward a higher goal of 50% if this contract progresses to include the 350 cars needed for Transit City.  A proposal to ask for sliding scale bids based on various levels of Canadian content was not adopted.

Bombardier’s representative, Mike Hardt, spoke about his company’s unhappiness with the process.  Bombardier feels that their bid was disqualified on a technical ground that was not justified, and they are concerned about now being placed in a different, unstructured bidding situation.  Bombardier claims that the mismatch between their cars and the TTC’s existing track system can be remedied by $10.4-million worth of work, but it is unclear of the time period this would cover nor the validity of the estimate. 

The work would involve grinding and filling track mainly at intersections to fit the Bombardier equipment’s wheel profile.  The TTC disputes this scheme and is concerned, legitimately I believe, that this would impose an ongoing requirement to maintain all track to a special standard to avoid safety problems with the new cars.  Ironically, Hardt also stated a few times during the Q&A that Bombardier could meet the TTC spec if they had to, but disputes the requirement.  The positions are contradictory:  either Bombardier could bid a car that met the spec, or they have strong objections to doing so and prefer that the TTC adapt their infrastructure.

Hardt said that if Bombardier’s cars wouldn’t work on the TTC system after delivery, they would be repaired at the vendor’s cost.  Commissioner Perruzza told Hardt to put that in writing.  However, we already know that Bombardier’s idea of “working” includes having the TTC make track changes, and there would doubtless be endless wrangling over whether a derailment was the TTC’s or Bombardier’s fault.  It’s easy to claim you will pay to fix something when you have an escape clause of blaming the client.

Most striking about Hardt’s deputation was the arrogance he displayed toward the TTC.  I was fascinated to watch the faces as one Commissioner after another could not believe the way they were being treated.  If I had presented a deputation half as contemptuous of staff, I would have been at best given my five minutes and at worst told to shut up and sit down.  Even Commissioners of a left-wing bent who support the Thunder Bay workers were driven to far more aggressive questioning than Hardt might otherwise have received.  He did Bombardier and its workers no favours and has likely alienated the very “friends at court” Bombardier might need if the debate comes down to a close decision between proponents.

Continue reading →

by

Škoda to Propose Streetcars for Toronto

News comes to me that Škoda, one of the streetcar manufacturers who declined to bid on the recent TTC request for proposals, plans to re-enter discussions with the TTC.

At this point, I have no information on what vehicle(s) they might suggest, but a look at their website shows an interesting mix of possibilities.

Tramcar product page

This page shows a range of Škoda’s streetcar products, but does not include their latest 100% low floor model.

Model T15 low floor car

An order for these cars was recently placed for Riga, Latvia according to a press release.  Although the T15 is officially standard gauge (1435mm), the Riga cars will be a wider gauge (1524mm, or 5 feet) leaving Toronto in the middle of the range.

More news on this as and when it develops.

by

TTC Cancels Streetcar Request for Proposals (Update 4)

Updated July 20, 10:00 pm:

TTC Chair Adam Giambrone now admits that his statements about information in Bombardier’s bid referred to TTC staff remarks, not Bombardier’s submission itself. 

See coverage in the Globe and Star.

I can’t help finding this situation very embarrassing for the bid process, and distressing because of the potentail for delay in procurement of cars for both the “city” streetcar system and for Transit City.

Updated July 18, 4:10 pm:

Additional media reports in the Globe Report on Business and in the Sun.

Updated July 18, 6:30 am:

Media reports on this issue appear in the Star, Globe and National Post.

Updated July 17, 10:10 pm:

When a story this big lands at 4:30 in the afternoon via a press release, there is usually a flurry of interest and followup information, but so far things have been fairly quiet.  In the absence of specific comments, here are a bunch of questions for everyone involved:

  • Why did Bombardier tell us throughout the RFP process that they had a car for Toronto, and happily let the CAW shill for them to keep jobs in Thunder Bay, only to turn around and bid a non-compliant car.  Did they think that the TTC would automatically turn to them for an alternate design without widening the field?
  • The TTC press release states that they can sort out the problems with some manufacturer over the next four weeks.  How is this possible unless Bombardier already has a “plan B” ready to go? 
  • Why was the TTC so confident, when they changed their spec midway through the process to require 100% low floor vehicles, that this would not compromise bidders’ ability to propose a compatible vehicle?
  • What parts of the spec, beyond the tight curves on our street railway system, are impediments to other vendors, or are they just tired of all orders going to Bombardier and not bothering to waste their time on a bid?
  • Has the TTC considered whether other operators of “legacy” street railway systems in North America might also have a need for cars that fit on older systems where PCCs had no problem operating for decades?
  • What is the future of our streetcar system with an aging fleet of CLRVs and ALRVs rumoured to be less than 100% available?  Will the TTC at least commit the resources needed to get all of its current fleet back on the road?
  • How will a delay in acquiring new “city” cars affect plans for Transit City?

Inevitably, opponents of the TTC and of LRT in general will seize on this foul-up to show how the TTC can’t plan properly (as if we had any sterling examples elsewhere in these parts), and how an all subway, BRT and maybe even RT network is just the ticket.  They would be wrong, and any agency or politician who attempts such an attack will get no quarter from me.

Yes, this is a bad situation.  Toronto dithered for years about new versus rebuilt streetcars, finally opted for all new, then changed their spec to all low-floor, and now faces a delay for which there really wasn’t any room in the schedule.  Moreover, they still don’t know who will pay for the new fleet.

Metrolinx for its part is still pulling together a regional transportation plan, but seems to be pricing themselves out of the market.  Their plan has a huge capital and operating cost, and does nothing to improve local transit service, an essential part of any regional scheme.  Any move by Metrolinx to slip into a perceived vacuum at the TTC would be complete folly.

Indeed, Metrolinx was specifically set up not to be a local transit operator for fear of alienating the 905 municipalities forming the heart of its Board.  The last thing Metrolinx needs is having to explain what passes for service on the Queen Car.

The TTC needs to be upfront about the problems, about why so few bids were received and about what can be done to get real competition.  They need to re-establish Toronto as a credible city in which any vendor other than Bombardier actually has a chance of winning business. Continue reading →

by

(Only) Bombardier Bids for New TTC Streetcars (Updated)

According to the TTC’s Materials & Procurement website late on the evening of July 1, there was only one bidder, Bombardier, for Toronto’s new generation of streetcars and, by extension, the cars that will be used for the Transit City network.

There are no details about the bid, and an announcement from the TTC is expected soon.  I will add to this post as information becomes available.

Updated July 2, 12:30pm:  The TTC amended its site to indicate that there was a second bidder, Tram Power of the UK.  This is a company that has never built a production run of vehicles for anyone, and I cannot see them being in any condition to support a bid of this size.  One other issue with their car (as described on their website) is that it is 70% low floor, not 100% as required by the TTC.

Matthew Campbell writes about this in today’s Globe and Mail.