TTC streetcar diversions
Ed Treijs
The TTC is continuing to make a mess of Spadina Avenue for the LRT (designed
no doubt in the gold-plated '80s). As part of this project, College and
Spadina were closed this weekend (and the previous one too, I think) for
track installation. Unlike the Spadina/King and Spadina/Queen junctions,
Spadina/College is not receiving a grand union.
As a result of the closure, Carlton cars were rerouted along Bay, Dundas, and
Ossington. Now streetcars have been very scarce along Bay recently, perhaps
because the Spadina closures (no overhead) make it less useful as a short-turn
route. However, I have only *once* ever seen a streetcar on Ossington, and
that had obviously been pushed there out of service. I think the switches
were plugged at Ossington/College and Ossington/Dundas.
It's an interesting stretch, with a valley in the middle, somewhat reminiscent
of Gerrard around Jones. Ossington is THE most obscure and unused section of
trackage on the TTC. Church from Carlton to Queen is infrequently-used, but
I've seen streetcars on there from time to time. I don't know when Townsley
Loop at Old Weston Rd and St Clair was last used, but it's not much trackage
there. Hmm I guess Adelaide from Bathurst to Church is pretty quiet too.
Well, the track along Ossington is in very good shape! Smooth and unworn.
The CLRVs really ARE heavy pigs, aren't they? I'm sure the Ossington trackage
has just sat there for ten years at least. No bumps or anything. I'd love to
see track maintenance stats between PCCs and CLRVs. Wouldn't surprise me if
CLRVs deteriorated track twice as fast.
Bay street trackage, on the other hand, is positively rancid. We crawled
north on Bay, the streetcar tipping ominously to the left. They're going to
have to fix this track, or abandon it, real soon. (Extend the Harbourfront
line north up bay to Dupont, yeah that's it!)
Because cars were being pushed onto Dundas by Spadina closures, that street
was almost gridlocked, which played hob with scheduling of both Dundas and
Carlton cars. While heading north on Bay, I saw a "506 Bathurst Station" car,
followed by a "506 McCaul". I didn't even know that McCaul (loop?) was a
destination for 506! Unfortunately McCaul couldn't be used for the diversion,
since there are no points for EB Dundas to NB McCaul, or SB McCaul to WB
Dundas.
Ed (have token, will travel) Treijs
Colin R. Leech
Ed Treijs (tra...@idirect.com) writes:
> The TTC is continuing to make a mess of Spadina Avenue for the LRT (designed
> no doubt in the gold-plated '80s).
Perhaps. However, I applaud the TTC for their decision taken around that
time that they would not build any more streetcar lines unless there is
substantial insulation from traffic congestion. Their operation in a
central reservation on Spadina will be a huge improvement over the delays
experienced on the other lines by people making illegal left turns,
collisions, etc.
I'm a bit disappointed in their decision to number the route as "just
another streetcar", however. The number won't change the operation of the
route, but it will affect the marketing. I would prefer to see the line
marketed as "rapid transit" rather than just "streetcar", which I believe
is reasonable considering the way it is constructed. As "just another
streetcar", it'll be a lot tougher to convince the "casual" rider to
divert along there instead of continuing along overcrowded subways into
certain parts of downtown. Of course, poeple like us :-) will figure this
out anyway, but it's tougher convincing Joe Q. Average to do the same.
This raises an interesting thought that I hadn't considered before. A
comparably fast and efficient section is the section of the 501 streetcar
along the Queensway between Sunnyside and the Humber River. Have they ever
considered running this section of route to continue up Roncesvalles into
the subway, rather than along a slow Queen or King St. into downtown? They
could also promote this as a rapid transit spur off the B-D subway.
> As part of this project, College and
> Spadina were closed this weekend (and the previous one too, I think) for
> track installation. Unlike the Spadina/King and Spadina/Queen junctions,
> Spadina/College is not receiving a grand union.
>
> As a result of the closure, Carlton
On College St., for people unfamiliar with Toronto. Carlton (they don't
know how to spell in Toronto :-) and College are the same street
(extensions of each other).
> cars were rerouted along Bay, Dundas, and
> Ossington.
Why not just replace them with buses, and maintain regular routes? Or were
the intersections completely closed, not just the tracks?
> However, I have only *once* ever seen a streetcar on Ossington, and
> that had obviously been pushed there out of service. [...]
> Ossington is THE most obscure and unused section of
> trackage on the TTC.
Trackage, yes. Of course, the wires were used for many years by the
Ossington trolley coaches.
> Hmm I guess Adelaide from Bathurst to Church is pretty quiet too.
Richmond and Adelaide have (had?) the distinction of having
two-directional streetcar trackage in the middle of the streets, but the
traffic flow on the streets had been converted to one-way a long time ago.
So one track is effectively useless.
> Well, the track along Ossington is in very good shape! Smooth and unworn.
No wonder, since they never use it. :-)
(Then again, it likely wouldn't have been rebuilt in the last couple of
decades, like much of the trackage has been, right?)
> The CLRVs really ARE heavy pigs, aren't they? I'm sure the Ossington trackage
> has just sat there for ten years at least. No bumps or anything. I'd love to
> see track maintenance stats between PCCs and CLRVs. Wouldn't surprise me if
> CLRVs deteriorated track twice as fast.
>
> Bay street trackage, on the other hand, is positively rancid. We crawled
> north on Bay, the streetcar tipping ominously to the left. They're going to
> have to fix this track, or abandon it, real soon. (Extend the Harbourfront
> line north up bay to Dupont, yeah that's it!)
Considering it's only a block or two in both directions to the Yonge and
the University Ave. subways, there wouldn't be much point. Didn't they
just cancel some weekend bus service on Bay St. due to low ridership and
proximity to the subways? Bay St. is more of a peak period overflow route,
rather than a separate travel corridor.
> Because cars were being pushed onto Dundas by Spadina closures, that street
> was almost gridlocked,
Yeah, but Dundas can be pretty hairy through Chinatown on weekends anyway.
Do you mean all traffic, or just streetcars? If just streetcars, would
there be enough of them to contribute significantly to traffic congestion?
> which played hob with scheduling of both Dundas and
> Carlton cars. While heading north on Bay, I saw a "506 Bathurst Station" car,
> followed by a "506 McCaul". I didn't even know that McCaul (loop?) was a
> destination for 506!
I was surprised and disappointed when they installed single destination
rollsigns on the CLRVs, so that every possible combination of route number
and destination has to be specifically enumerated. The PCCs had separate
rollsigns for route number and destination, so that names and numbers
could be mixed and matched at will. Do the CLRVs now have the electronic
signs that the buses do? For that matter, does *every* bus now have the
electronic signs?
--
##### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
##### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
##### > < Opinions are my own. Consider them shareware if you want.
##### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
David Harrison
In article <4om6fs$e...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>I was surprised and disappointed when they installed single destination
>rollsigns on the CLRVs, so that every possible combination of route number
>and destination has to be specifically enumerated. The PCCs had separate
>rollsigns for route number and destination, so that names and numbers
>could be mixed and matched at will. Do the CLRVs now have the electronic
>signs that the buses do? For that matter, does *every* bus now have the
>electronic signs?
CLRVs still have roll signs. Most, but not all, buses have electronic signs.
There are still many buses (particularly various GM New Look models) are still
using roll signs, although the roll signs are now yellow on black instead of
white on black.
David Harrison
da...@io.org
Ed Treijs
>Ed Treijs (tra...@idirect.com) writes:
>> The TTC is continuing to make a mess of Spadina Avenue for the LRT
(designed
>> no doubt in the gold-plated '80s).
>
>Perhaps. However, I applaud the TTC for their decision taken around that
>time that they would not build any more streetcar lines unless there is
>substantial insulation from traffic congestion. Their operation in a
>central reservation on Spadina will be a huge improvement over the delays
>experienced on the other lines by people making illegal left turns,
>collisions, etc.
I should have been a bit more precise, although my meaning is implicit in what
I wrote. The real mess has been the underground turning loop at Spadina and
Bloor. They have been digging up that intersection for literally years now.
Spadina station itself is a war zone.
It comes down to an expense vs. benefit here. Spadina north of Bloor (the
station is a few buildings north) is not that busy. Spadina buses have been
pulling in and out of the station for years now. Bathurst Station, which has
heavy streetcar usage, is more of a problem point because Bathurst is
*significantly* busier than Spadina, and some delays are inevitable.
The major delays on Spadina aren't in looping, they were down between College
and Queen. Centre PRW makes sense for that section of the route, sure.
However, the turning loop is what's slowing down the whole project. It must
require as much work as the rest of the line put together! Is the expense and
delay worth it for cutting maybe 20 seconds max off the running time? I just
don't think so. From a cost-effective point of view, I would propose that
putting an underground loop at Bathurst Station would make more sense.
However, when the line was designed, I suspect the planners went "neat cool-o,
we get an LRT wit' all da bells and whistles". I know these numbers are all
pretty rubbery, but I'm convinced that by strict cost/benefit calculations the
money spent on the Spadina underground loop could be MUCH better spent
elsewhere. But reality is of course block funding, project funding, and such.
(In the days when there was money to be spent.)
>I'm a bit disappointed in their decision to number the route as "just
>another streetcar", however. The number won't change the operation of the
>route, but it will affect the marketing. I would prefer to see the line
>marketed as "rapid transit" rather than just "streetcar", which I believe
>is reasonable considering the way it is constructed. As "just another
>streetcar", it'll be a lot tougher to convince the "casual" rider to
>divert along there instead of continuing along overcrowded subways into
>certain parts of downtown. Of course, poeple like us :-) will figure this
>out anyway, but it's tougher convincing Joe Q. Average to do the same.
It doesn't go anywhere near downtown, except at Union Station. I'm sure it
WILL become a preferred route for the Queen West and Skydome crowd. The
Dundas/Spadina Chinatown crowd knows all about it already. I can't see it
replacing the Yonge/University subway for CBD access.
BTW, many (though not all) Torontonians *like* their streetcars. The PCC
sendoff had half or full page spreads in all three papers. As "rapid transit"
the Harbourfront line has been a completely underwhelming success. I haven't
been on the Scarborough line recently, but I don't think it's people's first
choice either.
>This raises an interesting thought that I hadn't considered before. A
>comparably fast and efficient section is the section of the 501 streetcar
>along the Queensway between Sunnyside and the Humber River. Have they ever
>considered running this section of route to continue up Roncesvalles into
>the subway, rather than along a slow Queen or King St. into downtown? They
>could also promote this as a rapid transit spur off the B-D subway.
The revised Queensway 80 bus routing does pretty much the same thing
(Lakeshore Blvd, Parkside Dr to Keele station). There really isn't much
demand yet until you get out to Mimico, at which point the Royal York South
bus is a quick connection to the subway anyway. The TTC *is* obviously
thinking somewhat along your lines, by making the 501 through-running to Long
Branch. Perhaps they think to build demand. There are various building
projects being considered along that stretch of Lakeshore.
>> cars were rerouted along Bay, Dundas, and
>> Ossington.
>
>Why not just replace them with buses, and maintain regular routes? Or were
>the intersections completely closed, not just the tracks?
The intersections were closed irregularly, in various directions. Spadina
buses were rerouted in weird and wonderful ways. However, your point is
taken. The bus shuttle ran from Lansdowne to Church, which is almost the
entire west branch of the Carlton route. I don't know why they continued to
run the streetcars; however I had fun with the diversions!
>Richmond and Adelaide have (had?) the distinction of having
>two-directional streetcar trackage in the middle of the streets, but the
>traffic flow on the streets had been converted to one-way a long time ago.
>So one track is effectively useless.
As new trackwork goes in on those streets, the contra-direction track is
removed. That's the case on sections of Adelaide, and at the York (one-way
north) and Queen intersection.
>> Because cars were being pushed onto Dundas by Spadina closures, that street
>> was almost gridlocked,
>
>Yeah, but Dundas can be pretty hairy through Chinatown on weekends anyway.
>Do you mean all traffic, or just streetcars? If just streetcars, would
>there be enough of them to contribute significantly to traffic congestion?
Streetcars AND car traffic. It was uglier than usual.
>I was surprised and disappointed when they installed single destination
>rollsigns on the CLRVs, so that every possible combination of route number
>and destination has to be specifically enumerated. The PCCs had separate
>rollsigns for route number and destination, so that names and numbers
>could be mixed and matched at will. Do the CLRVs now have the electronic
>signs that the buses do? For that matter, does *every* bus now have the
>electronic signs?
CLRVs still have the one-piece roll sign (and funky metal "SHORT TURN" signs
on the outside right front). Almost all buses are electronic, except for some
"survivor" New Looks from 1975 (8010-8117 range; maybe 10 or 20 left).
Ed (even WALKING across Spadian/Bloor is an adventure!) Treijs
David Pischke
>BTW, many (though not all) Torontonians *like* their streetcars. The PCC
>sendoff had half or full page spreads in all three papers. As "rapid transit"
>the Harbourfront line has been a completely underwhelming success. I haven't
>been on the Scarborough line recently, but I don't think it's people's first
>choice either.
I think that the problem with the Scarborough RT is simply that it's
poorly located:
* From Kennedy to Lawrence East it runs through low density residential areas
and hydro fields. Lawrence East is surrounded by an industrial park to the
north and hydro fields to the south. There are a few apartment buildings and
a small plaza nearby. A no-transfer connection is provided to the 54 Lawrence
East buses but the station is too far away from Kennedy for a connection to
the 43 Kennedy buses to be provided.
* From Lawrence East to Midland it runs through a giant industrial park.
Ellesmere station is surrounded by an industrial park and some empty
fields to
the south and the north.
* The fact that there is no convenient transfer interface at Ellesmere between
the 95 York Mills bus and the RT (many people don't want to walk that far),
and the fact that there is nothing of any significance in that area makes
people reluctant to use that station for anything. There is a parking lot.
* Midland station is very close to Ellesmere station and also is not surrounded
by any significant development.
* McCowan station has a few office buildings around it, and that's all.
In fairness, there does seem to be a bit of development in the Scarborough
Centre-McCowan station area going on right now.
The only stations which get a great deal of use are Kennedy and
Scarborough Centre, both of which connect to many other popular routes.
Scarborough Centre is also situated next to the Scarborough Town Centre, a
large mall, and some government and commercial buildings.
I wonder whether streetcar running in a private right-of-way along Kennedy
and Ellesmere might have attracted more ridership than what we ended up
getting.
--
David Pischke (pis...@ecf.toronto.edu)
___ _____ Engineering is the art of moulding materials we do not fully
|__ |) | | | understand into shapes we cannot fully analyse and preventing
|__ |\ | |/\| the public from realising the full extent of our ignorance.
D McLoughlin
pis...@ecf.toronto.edu (David Pischke) wrote:
>
>
> I think that the problem with the Scarborough RT is simply that it's
> poorly located:
> Scarborough Centre, both of which connect to many other popular routes.
> Scarborough Centre is also situated next to the Scarborough Town Centre, a
> large mall, and some government and commercial buildings.
>
> I wonder whether streetcar running in a private right-of-way along Kennedy
> and Ellesmere might have attracted more ridership than what we ended up
> getting.
As I recall, the Scarborough line was intended to be operated by
LRVs originally, but political faddishment resulted in the present
gee-whiz technology line which will not be repeated anywhere
else. The monorail symptom I call it.
Ian Fisher
tra...@idirect.com (Ed Treijs) wrote:
>It comes down to an expense vs. benefit here. Spadina north of Bloor (the
>station is a few buildings north) is not that busy. Spadina buses have been
>pulling in and out of the station for years now. Bathurst Station, which has
>heavy streetcar usage, is more of a problem point because Bathurst is
>*significantly* busier than Spadina, and some delays are inevitable.
I am under the impression that the underground loop at Spadina and
Bloor was necessitated by Metro Roads refusal to eliminate left turns
off Spadina (both directions) to Bloor. Building the underground
terminal certainly puts a tremendous cost on keeping a couple of left
turns for cars!
------------
Ian Fisher ifi...@unixg.ubc.ca Transport 2000 British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada Visit the Transport 2000 BC Web Site:
Telephone/Fax: (604)681-3192 http://www.vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/
Mark Brader
> > I wonder whether streetcar running in a private right-of-way along Kennedy
> > and Ellesmere might have attracted more ridership than what we ended up
> > getting.
>
> As I recall, the Scarborough line was intended to be operated by
> LRVs originally,
By streetcars, yes. But it was also intended to be what in Europe is
sometimes called a pre-Metro: it would be upgradeable later to a subway
line -- obviously, an extension of the existing subway -- when demand
warranted. This limited where it could be built.
> but political faddishment resulted in the present gee-whiz technology
> line which will not be repeated anywhere else. The monorail symptom
> I call it.
No; this was a *different* political reason. The province was sponsoring
the development of this gee-whiz technology and now they needed someone
to buy it, so they refused to contribute the usual construction subsidy
unless the TTC (1) bought the system, and (2) made the curves and structures
suitable only for the new technology and not for a subway. I don't know to
what extent the route was fixed at that point, though.
Of course, the Scarborough RT is not the only example of the technology;
Vancouver's SkyTrain is a longer line using it. But "will not be repeated"
was written in the future tense and seems a fair prediction to me.
Disclaimer: I don't have a written source for the above information.
--
Mark Brader, m...@sq.com | Do not meddle in the affairs of undefined behavior,
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | for it is subtle and quick to anger.
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Ed Treijs
In article <4ovaeb$q...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, ifi...@unixg.ubc.ca says...
>
>tra...@idirect.com (Ed Treijs) wrote:
>
>>It comes down to an expense vs. benefit here. Spadina north of Bloor (the
>>station is a few buildings north) is not that busy. Spadina buses have been
>>pulling in and out of the station for years now. Bathurst Station, which
has
>>heavy streetcar usage, is more of a problem point because Bathurst is
>>*significantly* busier than Spadina, and some delays are inevitable.
>
>Bloor was necessitated by Metro Roads refusal to eliminate left turns
>off Spadina (both directions) to Bloor. Building the underground
>terminal certainly puts a tremendous cost on keeping a couple of left
>turns for cars!
I don't have the facts, but I'm cynical enough to have thought of that on my
own. :-P
The irony, in that case, is that because of excavation (it's all
cut-and-cover) there have been no left turns allowed from Spadina to Bloor for
a year or two. Basically Spadina is down to one narrow lane in each
direction.
For the price of that damn loop they could have done something useful. When I
figure out what that is, I'll get back to you. :-)
Ed (bring back the Dundas streetcar to Runnymede) Treijs
Tom_Pa...@mindlink.bc.ca
m...@sq.com (Mark Brader) wrote:
>> As I recall, the Scarborough line was intended to be operated by
>> LRVs originally,
>By streetcars, yes. But it was also intended to be what in Europe is
>sometimes called a pre-Metro: it would be upgradeable later to a subway
>line -- obviously, an extension of the existing subway -- when demand
>warranted. This limited where it could be built.
The original TTC staff's (I was one) preference was for an extension of the
subway. NIMBY opposition from Scarborough was so strong--based on noise--that
the second design was light rail with curves and connections that forever
precluded conversion to subway. Definitely not pre-metro. The TTC failed to
offer the obvious solution--noise reduced and buffered subway. They feared this
would set a precedent for the rest of the system--or at least the at-grade
sections. They did cost an all underground subway--obviously too expensive.
Political games then imposed the UTDC ICTS system. Instead of making the most of
this and getting the operating cost and service frequency benefits, the TTC
insisted on expensive redesigns and then staffing and operating the line like a
1930's streetcar. Later several of the "redesigns" had to be fixed. But the
great TTC always knows what is best.
Vancouver stayed with the design and operating concept. Result--the capital cost
less than half of Scarborough on a per kilometer basis and the operating cost
one third of Scarborough per passenger-kilometre.
: Tom Parkinson P.Eng. 604 733-5430, fax 733-5437
: Transport Consulting Limited, Vancouver, Canada
: Ah won't teck mi cooat off, Ah'm not stoppin.
Colin R. Leech
Ed Treijs (tra...@idirect.com) writes:
> It comes down to an expense vs. benefit here. Spadina north of Bloor (the
> station is a few buildings north) is not that busy. Spadina buses have been
> pulling in and out of the station for years now.
It becomes a question of how much impact the streetcars will have on
Bloor St. traffic at the intersection, and vice versa. I don't know the
numbers or the answer.
>Bathurst Station, which has
> heavy streetcar usage, is more of a problem point because Bathurst is
> *significantly* busier than Spadina, and some delays are inevitable.
Good point. We can expect Spadina to be busy as well. With most major
sporting events moved from Exhibition Stadium to SkyDome, the ridership on
the Bathurst streetcars is a lot less. Spadina may well be busier.
> However, the turning loop is what's slowing down the whole project. It must
> require as much work as the rest of the line put together! Is the expense and
> delay worth it for cutting maybe 20 seconds max off the running time?
My guess would be quite a bit more than 20 seconds at the busist times. Is
it worthwhile? I don't know.
> I just
> don't think so. From a cost-effective point of view, I would propose that
> putting an underground loop at Bathurst Station would make more sense.
> ...
> It doesn't go anywhere near downtown, except at Union Station. I'm sure it
> WILL become a preferred route for the Queen West and Skydome crowd. The
> Dundas/Spadina Chinatown crowd knows all about it already. I can't see it
> replacing the Yonge/University subway for CBD access.
THere's been a *lot* of new development and redevelopment on the west end
of downtown since the SkyDome opened, and lots morte to come.
Colin R. Leech
Ed Treijs (tra...@idirect.com) writes:
> It doesn't go anywhere near downtown, except at Union Station. I'm sure it
> WILL become a preferred route for the Queen West and Skydome crowd. The
> Dundas/Spadina Chinatown crowd knows all about it already. I can't see it
> replacing the Yonge/University subway for CBD access.
There has been a lot of redevelopment in the west end of downtown anchored
by the SkyDome, with a lot more potential. The whole area is an old
factory district which is being rebuilt as commercial buildings etc. (eg.
the new CBC headquarters, lots of restuarants and bars serving SkyDome,
Harbourfront, etc.)
> BTW, many (though not all) Torontonians *like* their streetcars.
Yes, but people don't go out of their way to ride them in lieu of the
subway. I can see some of this happening on Spadina, more so than on other
lines, because of the additional speed and reliability that comes from
being separated from other traffic.
> As "rapid transit"
> the Harbourfront line has been a completely underwhelming success.
It's in the wrong place. THe things that are served directly are the
weekend Harbourfront flea markets and tourist boutiques frequented by the
granola-crunching Yuppie crowd. It's not a commuter market. If the
Southtown office building project on the old CP rail yards had ever gone
ahead, this would have been the better location for it. It doesn't even
serve SkyDome directly.
> I haven't
> been on the Scarborough line recently, but I don't think it's people's first
> choice either.
That one's a little different because the feeder buses were re-oriented to
force people to use it to reach the subway.
>>This raises an interesting thought that I hadn't considered before. A
>>comparably fast and efficient section is the section of the 501 streetcar
>>along the Queensway between Sunnyside and the Humber River. Have they ever
>>considered running this section of route to continue up Roncesvalles into
>>the subway, rather than along a slow Queen or King St. into downtown? They
>>could also promote this as a rapid transit spur off the B-D subway.
>
> The revised Queensway 80 bus routing does pretty much the same thing
> (Lakeshore Blvd, Parkside Dr to Keele station). There really isn't much
> demand yet until you get out to Mimico, at which point the Royal York South
> bus is a quick connection to the subway anyway. The TTC *is* obviously
> thinking somewhat along your lines, by making the 501 through-running to Long
> Branch. Perhaps they think to build demand. There are various building
> projects being considered along that stretch of Lakeshore.
The through-running makes a lot of sense (changing routes at the Humber
loop must have been a historic relic), but puttering along the length of
Queen St. into downtown is nothing like my idea of "a rapid transit spur
off the subway". Now, if Queen St. had faster running like Spadina will
for it streetcars, it would look a lot more attractive.
> CLRVs still have the one-piece roll sign (and funky metal "SHORT TURN" signs
> on the outside right front).
I didn't know (or didn't remember) that these had been recycled off the
PCCs onto the CLRVS!
> Ed (even WALKING across Spadian/Bloor is an adventure!) Treijs
Well, there you have it. :-) THe argument for the underground loop at
Spadina would be the same as at Bay St. In theory, it would be possible to
take a lane out of Bay St. and dedicate it to the streetcars, but in
practice, it would be politically impossible to reduce the road capacity
by half. So the solution for fast running is to take it underground.
(Bay St. has the additional factor that the underground loop essentially
fills the entire width of Bay St. at Front, and then some, plus the grades
in the area mean that it makes more sense there as well.)
Colin R. Leech
David Pischke (pis...@ecf.toronto.edu) writes:
>> I haven't
>>been on the Scarborough line recently, but I don't think it's people's first
>>choice either.
>
> I think that the problem with the Scarborough RT is simply that it's
> poorly located: [details of low density snipped]
The classic tradeoff between construction cost (the existing r-o-w was
available, and cheap) versus the "ideal" location for it. Is there
anything in the area that *isn't* low density, that isn't already served
by the SRT? (i.e. not the Scarboro Centre or McCowan stations).
> * McCowan station has a few office buildings around it, and that's all.
That's *all*? Seems like a pretty good reason to me!
> In fairness, there does seem to be a bit of development in the Scarborough
> Centre-McCowan station area going on right now.
>
> The only stations which get a great deal of use are Kennedy and
> Scarborough Centre, both of which connect to many other popular routes.
Well, of course, Kennedy is where everybody transfers to the subway. Not
much there otherwise.
> Scarborough Centre is also situated next to the Scarborough Town Centre, a
> large mall, and some government and commercial buildings.
>
> I wonder whether streetcar running in a private right-of-way along Kennedy
> and Ellesmere might have attracted more ridership than what we ended up
> getting.
The TTC had originally proposed a streetcar line along this r-o-w, but the
province wanted a showcase for its technology (it owned UTDC at the time).
Since the province pays 75% of capital costs, it can pretty much call the
tune.
Short of an expensive full subway extension along this corridor (which
would have been the ideal from a service perspective, but not cost-wise),
a busway along there would probably have made a lot more
sense. Most people are transferring to get to the subway anyway, so the
SRT or a streetcar replacement merely introduces an extra transfer and
extra inconvenience for passengers, and is one more factor making transit
less attractive than it could be. If you're building a completely new line
(eg. the Sheppard subway), then use whatever technology you want. But this
is really a short extension of an existing line (the B-D subway), so it
doesn't make sense to use a different technology.
Ed Treijs
In article <4p5t8g$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...
>It becomes a question of how much impact the streetcars will have on
>Bloor St. traffic at the intersection, and vice versa. I don't know the
>numbers or the answer.
Bloor is busier than Spadina (at least right now; Spadian, because of the
ages-old construction, is useless as a through road), but it's very important
to note that the only reason I can see for Spadina traffic hanging in the
intersection and tying up Bloor traffic would be if there WERE streetcars
turning into Spadina Station, AND they were blocking a LOT of northbound cars
so they backed up into the intersection. I don't think I've ever seen this
happen at Bathurst Station. Bathurst does not affect Bloor.
>>Bathurst Station, which has
>> heavy streetcar usage, is more of a problem point because Bathurst is
>> *significantly* busier than Spadina, and some delays are inevitable.
>
>Good point. We can expect Spadina to be busy as well. With most major
>sporting events moved from Exhibition Stadium to SkyDome, the ridership on
>the Bathurst streetcars is a lot less. Spadina may well be busier.
I meant Bathurst *Street*, oops. The impact of cars on turning streetcars,
and vice-versa, is much greater at Bathurst Station than I think it would be
at Spadina station, even with heavy streetcar service. The bus frequency on
Spadina right now is a bus every two minutes or so. With the LRT I can see
them actually increasing headways due to greater speed, reliability and
capacity of transit vehicles.
>> However, the turning loop is what's slowing down the whole project. It
must
>> require as much work as the rest of the line put together! Is the expense
and
>
>> delay worth it for cutting maybe 20 seconds max off the running time?
>
>My guess would be quite a bit more than 20 seconds at the busist times. Is
>it worthwhile? I don't know.
If left turns from Spadina were banned, I don't see the streetcars having to
wait any more than one light to cross the street. Spadina doesn't really go
anywhere north of Bloor; it ends at Davenport. As someone else posted (maybe
it was a private E-mail), the underground loop is more for the benefit of cars
(who get their precious left turns) than for transit. Given a reasonable
above-ground layout, getting across Bloor and into the loop will NOT take
longer than crossing Dundas and Queen, which will be the two bottlenecks I
think. There are left turn lanes impinging on the right-of-way all along
Spadina. It's not like Bloor would be the only place where the route
encounters traffic.
>> Ed (even WALKING across Spadian/Bloor is an adventure!) Treijs
>
>Well, there you have it. :-) THe argument for the underground loop at
>Spadina would be the same as at Bay St. In theory, it would be possible to
>take a lane out of Bay St. and dedicate it to the streetcars, but in
>practice, it would be politically impossible to reduce the road capacity
>by half. So the solution for fast running is to take it underground.
>(Bay St. has the additional factor that the underground loop essentially
>fills the entire width of Bay St. at Front, and then some, plus the grades
>in the area mean that it makes more sense there as well.)
Ooops. I meant that walking across Spadina is an adventure *due to
construction*. Indeed it is! If there weren't barriers and "pedestrian
walkways" and "cross other side" things happening, it would be no big deal (if
we can remember back to when the intersection wasn't under
construction....wasn't that about 50 years ago, when the Spadina streecar used
a crossover just south of Bloor???).
As far as the Union Station loop, physical aboveground space is very limited.
Spadina Station looks plenty big enough to me for a streetcar loop,
especially given that bus traffic to the station will be way down (Rogers Road
route?).
Anyway, I think that without info from the actual planning process that put
the loop underground, we're now getting into the HDF (Horse. Dead. Flog.)
stage.
Ed (hanging around Bloor/Spadina too long) Treijs
Colin R. Leech
(Tom_Pa...@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:
> Political games then imposed the UTDC ICTS system. Instead of making the most of
> this and getting the operating cost and service frequency benefits, the TTC
> insisted on expensive redesigns and then staffing and operating the line like a
> 1930's streetcar. Later several of the "redesigns" had to be fixed. But the
> great TTC always knows what is best.
>
> Vancouver stayed with the design and operating concept. Result--the capital cost
> less than half of Scarborough on a per kilometer basis and the operating cost
> one third of Scarborough per passenger-kilometre.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this? In what ways is Scarborough different
from Vancouver? One obvious item that comes to mind is that Vancouver is
driverless, while Scarborough requires one driver per train.
Colin R. Leech
Ed Treijs (tra...@idirect.com) writes:
> In article <4p5t8g$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> says...
> I meant that walking across Spadina is an adventure *due to
> construction*. Indeed it is! If there weren't barriers and "pedestrian
> walkways" and "cross other side" things happening, it would be no big deal (if
> we can remember back to when the intersection wasn't under
> construction....wasn't that about 50 years ago, when the Spadina streecar used
> a crossover just south of Bloor???).
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out over time. We wouldn't
really want pedestrians crossing the streetcar tracks all along its length
- you'd either get the streetcar drivers slowing down so as not to run
over the peds, or else you'd lose a few of the stupider peds along the
way, the way Calgary's LRT did. Before the reconstruction you'd take your
life into your hands trying to cross Spadina anywhere except at a
signalized intersection, due to the extreme width of pavement (and lack of
clearly identified lanes). Now, I suspect that people will be encouraged
to cross anywhere, sicne they figure they only have to cross half at a
time, and then take refuge in the barriers along the streetcar r-o-w in
the middle.
> As far as the Union Station loop, physical aboveground space is very limited.
I was actually thinking more of an around-the-block loop, rather than the
one they have which is pretty much contained under the intersection of Bay
and Front (with infringement into the service access roads ("teamways")
of Union Station and the other side).
Tom_Pa...@mindlink.bc.ca
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> TTC insisted on expensive redesigns and then staffing and operating the line like a
>> 1930's streetcar. Later several of the "redesigns" had to be fixed. But the
>> great TTC always knows what is best.
>>
>> Vancouver stayed with the design and operating concept. Result--the capital cost
>> less than half of Scarborough on a per kilometer basis and the operating cost
>> one third of Scarborough per passenger-kilometre.
>Could you elaborate a bit more on this? In what ways is Scarborough different
>from Vancouver? One obvious item that comes to mind is that Vancouver is
>driverless, while Scarborough requires one driver per train.
1) Differences include the guideway structure, running rails, LIM rail and ATC
cable mounting--all different and heavier in TTC's own "we invented it here"
design. 2) Use of operator/observer to start the train from each station which
requires cab, manual controls and an expensive custom interface to the ATC
system--over $250,000 per car. 3) Use of station fare collectors, including one
location where reportedly fewer than 200 passengers a day are handled.
Ulf Kutzner
> >> As I recall, the Scarborough line was intended to be operated by
> >> LRVs originally,
> >By streetcars, yes. But it was also intended to be what in Europe is
> >sometimes called a pre-Metro: it would be upgradeable later to a subway
> >line -- obviously, an extension of the existing subway -- when demand
> >warranted. This limited where it could be built.
> The original TTC staff's (I was one) preference was for an extension of the
> subway. NIMBY opposition from Scarborough was so strong--based on noise--that
> the second design was light rail with curves and connections that forever
> precluded conversion to subway. Definitely not pre-metro. The TTC failed to
> offer the obvious solution--noise reduced and buffered subway. They feared this
> would set a precedent for the rest of the system--or at least the at-grade
> sections. They did cost an all underground subway--obviously too expensive.
> 1930's streetcar. Later several of the "redesigns" had to be fixed. But the
> great TTC always knows what is best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_3_Scarborough
Regards, ULF
Félix An
riding it to STC during Christmastime.