News   Mar 28, 2024
 509     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 333     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 344     0 

Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

First of all, by the time you factor in $400M of new buses instead and $300+M of new garages, plus losses on the current order, as well as training costs for hiring new operators and possibly de-configuring St Clair and Spadina it's probably cheaper to keep them anyways.

Never mind the high possibility of a grassroots uprising.

It makes no sense to remove them. Wastes money and makes traffic worse. It's the single-occupant illegal left turns that block traffic downtown. Removing the streetcars and throwing 200 buses an hour down Queen Street would not help that at all.
 
Ford would never be able to get rid of the streetcars downtown because it would lead to grassroot protests (with me included). I would never want to lose my streetcars.

It's just hot air, like TC, but reversed.
 
He can't unilatterally do that. The only role that council as a whole has is approving or not approving the TTC's budget. The councillors serving on the TTC's board set the actual budget, based on staff input. Besides, would council as a whole go against the coroner's recommendations made following the Russell Hill subway accident? No way.
 
He can't unilatterally do that. The only role that council as a whole has is approving or not approving the TTC's budget. The councillors serving on the TTC's board set the actual budget, based on staff input. Besides, would council as a whole go against the coroner's recommendations made following the Russell Hill subway accident? No way.
Who picks the members of the TTC? Does the mayor appoint or merely recommend?
 
I hope the streetcars stay. I think their advantages over buses are numerous. Primarily, they carry more passengers than buses, so each streetcar would need to be replaced with more than one bus (I've seen a ratio of 4 buses per 3 non-articulated streetcars, but that sounds low to me). Secondly, streetcars are silent when stopped and they don't spew exhaust while idling -- anyone who's stood beside an idling bus will know that it's unpleasant. Downtown traffic spends a lot of time stopped even on a good day, so this is important.

The only major drawback of streetcars is that they can't go around blockages on the rails. However, I think this fact is overblown because if there's any kind of accident or incident on a downtown street like King or Queen you're going to end up with gridlock quite quickly, and buses wouldn't be going anywhere either.

On the whole, this idea of people in cars blaming streetcars and cyclists for traffic congestion is laughable. As Christopher Hume wrote last week, this is like making transit policy based on road rage, the way people tend to honk and blame the car immediately in front of them for a 10 mile traffic jam. If the 100+ people on each streetcar were all sitting in their own cars, would the traffic be better? Transit riders and cyclists are doing their bit to improve traffic for everyone, and it boggles my mind that they are being blamed in this way. I don't know where this regressive insane thinking will end, but I don't have a good feeling.

EDIT: Great editorial on the insanity of replacing streetcars with buses here: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/weblog/2010/09/09-editorial_.shtml
 
Last edited:
I am a little weary of having to read that old chestnut about a streetcar can carry more passengers than a bus therefore we need 5 buses to replace 3 streetcars and of course hire 2 more drivers.
This is probably the case for 2 hours per day but the rest of the time the streetcar is carrying many fewer passengers than would fill a bus suggesting that a 1:1 replacement ratio is more realistic.

As far as congestion is concerned here is a little test for streetcar riders to occupy themselves with when their streetcar is not moving. Take a look out the back window, if there is a lineup of traffic then the streetcar is the problem. Take a look out the front window of the streetcar, if there is no lineup of traffic then the streetcar is the problem. Traffic congestion as it is seen through the windshield of a car is typically a streetcar towing a flotilla of automobiles across town, take off your transit coloured glasses and take an honest look at the problem.
 
Last edited:
I am a little weary of having to read that old chestnut about a streetcar can carry more passengers than a bus therefore we need 5 buses to replace 3 streetcars and of course hire 2 more drivers.
This is probably the case for 2 hours per day but the rest of the time the streetcar is carrying many fewer passengers than would fill a bus suggesting that a 1:1 replacement ratio is more realistic.
Though rush-hour is at least 2 hours, twice a day.

Not sure how that's relevant. The number of vehicles, and garages that are necessary is a function of the peak load at rush-hour.
 
I am a little weary of having to read that old chestnut about a streetcar can carry more passengers than a bus therefore we need 5 buses to replace 3 streetcars and of course hire 2 more drivers.
This is probably the case for 2 hours per day but the rest of the time the streetcar is carrying many fewer passengers than would fill a bus suggesting that a 1:1 replacement ratio is more realistic.

But the problem (as you describe it) relates specifically to congestion, so really the most relevant time for comparison is at peak time. And trust me, try to hop on a 504 or a 501 anywhere near rush hour and I promise you it will be packed to capacity and then some. Clearly at other times the streetcars will be below capacity, but these are generally times when vehicle traffic is light anyway.

As far as congestion is concerned here is a little test for streetcar riders to occupy themselves with when their streetcar is not moving. Take a look out the back window, if there is a lineup of traffic then the streetcar is the problem. Take a look out the front window of the streetcar, if there is no lineup of traffic then the streetcar is the problem. Traffic congestion as it is seen through the windshield of a car is typically a streetcar towing a flotilla of automobiles across town, take off your transit coloured glasses and take an honest look at the problem.

Clearly if you vapourized the streetcar and all its riders things would improve, but in reality it needs to be replaced with something, and those people need to be transported in a different manner. If you replace that streetcar with a bus (or 1.2 buses, or 2 buses, whatever) would not the same phenomenon occur? A bus still needs to stop at every major intersection, is hard to pass, and hits a larger number of reds. Alternatively, if you gave every person on that streetcar a car, would you not then have 100 or so extra cars choking the road instead?

I am wearing "transit coloured glasses" because to me, logic dictates that public transit moves the same number of people more efficiently through a space than individual automobiles. Of course a streetcar with 100 people on it takes up more room and moves slower than a single automobile, but it certainly does not take up 100 times more room or travel 100 times slower. Instead of blaming the streetcar for slowing things down a bit, you should be glad that it has taken 100 or more cars off your road at rush hour. If you're angry about congestion, why not question why there are dozens of cars at every traffic light with a single person in them?
 
Spadina's a pretty compelling example of what traffic in downtown Toronto looks like on a major 4-lane arterial without streetcar interference They're there but don't affect traffic, nor are signal timings changed for them. In fact Spadina is probably better because they had space to put in advanced greens at most major streets so cars dont' block the inner lane.

Of course, traffic just goes roaring up Spadina. Bathurst, which has mixed traffic streetcars, seems to flow better. Explain this?

Also, I think anybody that doesn't think that bustitution would trash ridership needs to go ride the Bay bus. It's painfully slow and does not have the smooth comfortable ride of a streetcar. It's downright unpleasant, really. That's why nobody takes it even though it could be a comfortable alternative to the overcrowded subway.

Traffic's congested downtown because it's downtown. You could put a subway under every major street downtown and bikes would still be outrunning cars on Queen Street. This is a big city. Deal with it.

If you want to relieve congestion, ban ALL left turns from non devoted lanes. That would actually have a tangible effect. They get in the way of streetcars more often than streetcars get in the way of cars.
 
Last edited:
I am wearing "transit coloured glasses" because to me, logic dictates that public transit moves the same number of people more efficiently through a space than individual automobiles. Of course a streetcar with 100 people on it takes up more room and moves slower than a single automobile.
I agree the streetcar is a more efficient use of road space but is very slow and dictates the pace of traffic. My point was that it is the streetcar that causes congestion, not the automobiles as is the common perception. You posted about a half hour after my comments so obviously you did not take the suggested test.


Instead of blaming the streetcar for slowing things down a bit, you should be glad that it has taken 100 or more cars off your road at rush hour. If you're angry about congestion, why not question why there are dozens of cars at every traffic light with a single person in them?
Another flawed assumption we see too often, what makes you think EVERY passenger on that streetcar owns a car?
 
I am a little weary of having to read that old chestnut about a streetcar can carry more passengers than a bus therefore we need 5 buses to replace 3 streetcars and of course hire 2 more drivers.
This is probably the case for 2 hours per day but the rest of the time the streetcar is carrying many fewer passengers than would fill a bus suggesting that a 1:1 replacement ratio is more realistic..

A lot of buses are under capacity outside of rush hour too. Does that mean it makes sense to replace buses with ricshaws?
 
I agree the streetcar is a more efficient use of road space but is very slow and dictates the pace of traffic. My point was that it is the streetcar that causes congestion, not the automobiles as is the common perception. You posted about a half hour after my comments so obviously you did not take the suggested test.

I get the point of your "test," thanks, and I do understand that a streetcar does slow down traffic a bit. But, my argument is that that slightly slower streetcar (or bus) is replacing many, many automobiles which would cause much more severe traffic delays. So while its impact on congestion is not zero it is still a more efficient form of moving those passengers than the alternatives. You cannot look at a streetcar and think "traffic would be much better without it" but not account for the fact that the passsengers on that streetcar would need to move around another way if it did not exist.

Another flawed assumption we see too often, what makes you think EVERY passenger on that streetcar owns a car?

Many probably don't own cars, but if they did not have the option of transit they would have to purchase them. If we are speaking of a hypothetical situation where streetcars/buses did not exist, then those commuters would still need to travel. The most obvious method they would use to do this would be by car. Since the percentage of commuters who carpool is very small, I think it is pretty safe to assume there would be nearly one additional car per passenger on the streetcar. Even if the ratio was slightly smaller like 0.8 or 0.9 cars per passenger, my point would still be valid in that many, many cars would replace the transit vehicle.

Anyway, we've made our points and neither of us seems likely to change our minds, so I'm moving along now. Take care.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top