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

[innsertnamehere]

How would you expand Bathurst? The TTC has tracks running to st. Clair already it just doesn't use them for service. Dufferin could use a new streetcar to Eglinton though, and it would probably have to be mixed traffic. That would be long term regardless, short term streetcar extensions will be the portlands and queens quay extensions.

 

[salsa]

How would you expand Bathurst? The TTC has tracks running to st. Clair already it just doesn't use them for service. Dufferin could use a new streetcar to Eglinton though, and it would probably have to be mixed traffic. That would be long term regardless, short term streetcar extensions will be the portlands and queens quay extensions.

Hopefully the new Dufferin station on the crosstown line will provide some relief and shorten people's trips.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From CTV News, check this link:

Daniele Hamamdjian on the unity a train (tram) in Jerusalem is creating between Arabs and Jews as it travels through invisible borders.

No subway because of archaeological problems.

 

[BMO]

To be fair^ that will be vastly different from what Transit City proposes, both shots show it in a completely separated ROW.

 

[W. K. Lis]

To be fair^ that will be vastly different from what Transit City proposes, both shots show it in a completely separated ROW.

This photo

shows a street with tracks and pedestrian access. Maybe the trams actually share the roadway through that section of town or the road is actually closed to car and bus traffic.

 

[nfitz]

To be fair^ that will be vastly different from what Transit City proposes, both shots show it in a completely separated ROW.

To be fair, you can't judge from two shots. Given that the Jersusalem LRT does play with traffic more than the proposed Transit City lines, isn't parts of it more comparable to the existing TTC streetcar lines than Transit City?

Here's some more shots:

 

[BMO]

To be fair, you can't judge from two shots. Given that the Jersusalem LRT does play with traffic more than the proposed Transit City lines, isn't parts of it more comparable to the existing TTC streetcar lines than Transit City?

I was comparing the two shots. The two shots that were used clearly are much better laid out than having an LRT in the middle of the road going through countless street lights. Whether it deviates from that as you show in your pictures is different, ofcourse. And for the record, all those shots you posted are an LRT in separated rights of way, one is exiting a transit only trench with a car that is obviously in the wrong lane, another shows the LRTs running through a pedestrian mall, another shows it coming out of a transit only alleyway, and the one shot with the car would be the only thing comparable to Transit City IMO.

In fact if you look at the route map it's very much it's own entity weaving through the urban fabric.

 

[ehlow]

Anyways there are many examples of streetcars/trams running on streets with ROW that go through intersections with traffic lights around the world, just like Transit City.

Examples: Amsterdam, Brussels, Boston, Paris

 

[BMO]

Anyways there are many examples of streetcars/trams running on streets with ROW that go through intersections with traffic lights around the world, just like Transit City.

Examples: Amsterdam, Brussels, Boston, Paris

Fair, it's just when you have these Transit City advocates (not a shot at Nfitz at all I'm just speaking as a general comment of my views) who take examples like LA's Light Rail which is all but an above ground subway saying "hey this moves people around just fine" yea ofcourse it does, but many examples tossed around aren't indicative of what we will get with Transit City. FWIW I am an advocate for LRT where it makes sense, i.e. medium densities with low to mid rise development for Local-medium trips. I don't agree that LRT should be used as a long-distance form of rapid transit, especially if it runs in the middle of a busy ROW competing with Bikes, Cars and pedestrians. I think an emphasis on having LRT focus on the local to medium trips funneling people onto more than one higher order rapid transit line like GO or another subway line for longer trips is what is needed and is supported by examples around the world from Madrid (LRT short distances in the suburbs shuttling to the Metro system), to Paris (same as Madrid) to name a few. In very few cities, if any, the physical expanse of Toronto, do you see LRTs as a long-distance form of transportation without accompanying high order transit routes to handle the long-distance trips. I think Eglinton is priobably the better of all the planned Transit City LRT lines.

But I digress.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^I think almost every* LRT line goes through traffic lights somewhere along its route. If it didn't, it would be a grade separated system and the benefits of using LRT technology would be kind of moot.





* The only exceptions I can think of are Monterrey and Manila.

 

[BMO]

^I think almost every* LRT line goes through traffic lights somewhere along its route. If it didn't, it would be a grade separated system and the benefits of using LRT technology would be kind of moot.





* The only exceptions I can think of are Monterrey and Manila.

Fair enough, I guess my argument was more along what frequency of roadway interactions and street crossings.

 

[gweed123]

^I think almost every* LRT line goes through traffic lights somewhere along its route. If it didn't, it would be a grade separated system and the benefits of using LRT technology would be kind of moot.

* The only exceptions I can think of are Monterrey and Manila.

Ottawa is building a completely grade-separated system right now. Of course, using LRT doesn't preclude the possibility of suburban extensions (in Barrhaven, Riverside South, etc) crossing intersections at-grade.

IMO, the choice for LRT was a left-over from the initial LRT plan that got canned. When they restarted with the tunnel option, I don't think technology choice was ever seriously revisited.

 

[ehlow]

Fair, it's just when you have these Transit City advocates (not a shot at Nfitz at all I'm just speaking as a general comment of my views) who take examples like LA's Light Rail which is all but an above ground subway saying "hey this moves people around just fine" yea ofcourse it does, but many examples tossed around aren't indicative of what we will get with Transit City. FWIW I am an advocate for LRT where it makes sense, i.e. medium densities with low to mid rise development for Local-medium trips. I don't agree that LRT should be used as a long-distance form of rapid transit, especially if it runs in the middle of a busy ROW competing with Bikes, Cars and pedestrians. I think an emphasis on having LRT focus on the local to medium trips funneling people onto more than one higher order rapid transit line like GO or another subway line for longer trips is what is needed and is supported by examples around the world from Madrid (LRT short distances in the suburbs shuttling to the Metro system), to Paris (same as Madrid) to name a few. In very few cities, if any, the physical expanse of Toronto, do you see LRTs as a long-distance form of transportation without accompanying high order transit routes to handle the long-distance trips. I think Eglinton is priobably the better of all the planned Transit City LRT lines.

But I digress.

I agree that the transit city lines are for local to medium trips ideally, but some will use it for long distance anyways. Subways aren't necessarily good for long distance trips either. If you take the Bloor line from the ends to the middle or from one end to the other, it still takes a long time. However, people do use transit lines that way since there are no attractive alternatives.

I know several people who take the bus to the ends of the Bloor line, then go to Yonge and transfer to the Yonge line every day.

For those who take the Eglinton bus longer distances, the LRT will be quite an improvement.

One nitpick though is that in the eastern part of Eglinton where the LRT will be on the surface, there won't be many pedestrians or bikes. It's a fast, wide, surburban road where traffic lights are relatively further apart and usually green to the main road (Eglinton). To me, that's where on street ROW performs best (the opposite of Spadina).

 

[ehlow]

^I think almost every* LRT line goes through traffic lights somewhere along its route. If it didn't, it would be a grade separated system and the benefits of using LRT technology would be kind of moot.





* The only exceptions I can think of are Monterrey and Manila.

I was under the impression that there were fully grade-separated LRT lines, Calgary, maybe some LA lines? In order to do that though I think you'd need to either create an elevated structure, tunnel, or hydro/train corridor.

It seems like most elevated structures now have concrete pillars like a highway or the Vancouver skytrain, not like the NYC & Chicago steel structures. Also I would assume an elevated station now would have to be more elaborate than those in NYC, Chi, Philly, since there are new accessibility laws (must have elevators). So elevated structures & stations seem like they would take a lot of room.

On the plus side, I find riding elevated, trench, or on-street much more enjoyable since you can actually look out the window and see the weather.

 

[ShonTron]

^I think almost every* LRT line goes through traffic lights somewhere along its route. If it didn't, it would be a grade separated system and the benefits of using LRT technology would be kind of moot.

* The only exceptions I can think of are Monterrey and Manila.

There are a few LRT systems where there are no traffic lights, but grade crossings with full LRT priority - like railway crossings. Calgary would be like that if the 7th Avenue Mall is ever replaced by a tunnel; St. Louis Metrolink is entirely like that - most crossings on the Missouri side are grade separated, all the rest are railway crossings, with few grade separations, all Illinois side crossings are all lights, bells and gates as well. The Edmonton LRT uses lights, bells and gates as well rather than stopping at red lights.