New Streetcars

[W. K. Lis]

One of the reasons the TTC has the lowest subsidy of all the major transit systems in North America is because of the streetcar.
The operating and maintenance costs are lower than buses (my 20+ year old electric lawn mover only needed its blades sharped). The capital costs (tracks and wiring) are higher. However, the streetcars last longer (30 vs. 12) and carry more passengers per vehicle (the Spadina bus carried less people than the Spadina streetcar, but used more buses). And most important, people like them better.
In the United States, crowds come out to new streetcar lines opening up. Nobody gives a ceremony when a new bus opens up.

 

[RedRocket191]

"Low subsidy" means two very different things.

The way you are using it means that the system is run efficiently and that it doesn't need very much extra funding to balance the books.

The other meaning is as that the subsidy it receives is too low. That is a sign that governments aren't funding the system.

By the first meaning, we want to have low subsidy because it means we run a tight ship. By the second meaning, we want to have a high subsidy because it will mean that our system will get the funding it needs to expand more quickly.

 

[unimaginative2]

I like streetcars too, W.K. Lis, but I don't really think some of your observations quite jive with the facts. None of Toronto's streetcar routes generate a fare recovery that's above the systemwide average, and they're lower than many bus routes. When the Spadina bus was converted to streetcars, it went from being the only route in the system with a fare recovery above 100% to having performance well below the surface route average (~50%).

I totally agree that people like them better, though, and I think that's a big reason to build/maintain them. A lot of people who'd never ride a bus will ride a streetcar.

But the familiar rumble as they travel down the tracks won't change.

I know they're just being cute, but won't it? These new cars will be much lighter than the CLRVs, so won't they cut down on noise quite a bit?

 

[nfitz]

These new cars will be much lighter than the CLRVs, so won't they cut down on noise quite a bit?

I thought the last time there was a discussion of this, the thought was the new units would be similiar, or heaver than the CLRV and ALRV units.

Though I'm not sure I get the noise issue - I live near the tracks. A diesel bus makes more noise climbing the hill - and they both have nothing on a garbage truck.

 

[duper]

I thought the last time there was a discussion of this, the thought was the new units would be similiar, or heaver than the CLRV and ALRV units.

Though I'm not sure I get the noise issue - I live near the tracks. A diesel bus makes more noise climbing the hill - and they both have nothing on a garbage truck.

No, the new units would be significantly lighter. Current streetcars, especially the ALRV, are very heavy. Conversion will cut down on noise and presumably reduce the wear on tracks.

 

[nfitz]

I do not believe that to be the case. About a year ago on another forum, I did a calculation of the weight of various units, and the streetcars weights per axle for units being considered was similiar, or even heavier in some cases. There ALRV and CLRV are not particularly heavy units - it's more that the PCC were very light units. Though I can't find that right now - but I challenge someone to check out the ALRV and CLRV weights compared to say what is being used in Portland.

And a ligher unit may create more noise and wear - what if they managed to hit the wrong resonance frequence - again.

 

[W. K. Lis]

One carhouse... extra large please!

Unless the Wychwood carhouse somehow is un-abandoned, the Roncesvalles and Russell carhouse would be too small to handle the replacement LRVs by themselves. We will need at least one new carhouse just for the successors. Are there other abandoned carhouses that could be re-activated? Or do we have to built?
This could or not include room for the new recruits. We will have to have locations for other carhouses located near or adjacent to the new Transit City lines.

 

[JasonParis]

Make streetcars in Canada, labour says
Jan 31, 2008 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

When Ontario taxpayers are spending $1.2 billion on streetcars for Toronto, they should be built by Canadian workers, says the Toronto Labour Council.

It is calling on Queen's Park to help protect Canada's manufacturing sector, which labour leaders say lost 65,000 jobs in the last year, by demanding the TTC give the contract for 204 streetcars to a maker that will use at least half Canadian parts and labour.

It also wants Premier Dalton McGuinty to institute a policy, similar to one in the U.S., requiring 60 per cent parts and all assembly on major transit projects to be domestic.

The labour council estimates the TTC's $710 million contract of subway cars to Bombardier in 2006 sustained 600 Canadian jobs.

The streetcar contract is believed to be the biggest municipal transit contract in Canadian history. The subway deal proved controversial when a German firm said it could have supplied the cars for millions less.

Bombardier is the only Canadian streetcar manufacturer.

In December, the TTC decided that 25 per cent, or about $300 million, of the parts and labour for Toronto's new streetcars must be Canadian.

That decision was based on a consultant's report that said the TTC would effectively shut out any non-Canadian bidders if it required more than one-quarter domestic parts and labour.

But at Queen's Park yesterday, the labour council called the TTC's report "deeply flawed."

The council disputes the consultant's suggestion that only a small portion of the streetcar body, none of the undercarriage and a third of the final assembly could be supplied by Canadian companies. The unions say nearly 40 per cent of those parts and work could be domestic.

They also say manufacturers would locate assembly plants here to service the contract as they have done in the U.S., where Kinkisharyo has put plants in six U.S. cities for orders of 30 to 100 cars.

In an Oct. 19 letter to the council, Infrastructure Renewal Minister David Caplan said that procurement policies are a municipal matter.

 

[Hydrogen]

If Ontario taxpayers are going to foot the bill, and if they are to be built here, then build the streetcars in Ontario.

 

[unimaginative2]

^ Agreed. I don't want my tax dollars going to eliminating good Canadian manufacturing jobs, especially when the home countries of other builders have tough local content requirements.

 

[lead82]

I completely disagree. I would hate to waste my taxpaying dollars to tender a contract to a Canadian company be it in Ontario or elsewhere simply because it is mandated that a certain percent of content must be manufactured here. That is not the way to go.

We need to open it to tender between global transportation builders such as Siemens, Bombardier and others. The lowest bidder should win. If that is a Canadian company such as Bombardier, then so be it. I do not want to subsidize Bombardier simply because they are Canadian. That doesn't help and is a complete waste of money.

The subway contract could have saved Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars, but it went to Bombardier because it is Canadian.

These companies do provide good manufacturing jobs, but subsidizing a private company just to keep the couple hundred jobs here is short-sighted and bad for the company. Companies need to be able to compete globally using their business strategy and business values. If a company cannot compete then it should change its operations to be more efficient.

In the end it is the global economy and it's business acumen that will determine if a company survives and thrives.

On a side note:

To save manufacturing jobs here, one cannot subsidize dying companies. Subsidies should only be given to companies which are trying to innovate and to make a new market or to carve out a niche for themselves. Innovation is the only way to stay competitive and that's how you create and maintain good paying manufacturing jobs.

 

[TKTKTK]

I completely disagree. I would hate to waste my taxpaying dollars to tender a contract to a Canadian company be it in Ontario or elsewhere simply because it is mandated that a certain percent of content must be manufactured here. That is not the way to go.

I agree in this instance, but still believe in content-mandates in other areas. In this case there is only one manufacturer, really, who's likely to get the contract. There isn't an appropriate level of domestic competition to ensure Bombardier's bid is properly competitive. We're, in effect, both subsidizing an unprofitable company as well as supporting its monopoly.

 

[unimaginative2]

To save manufacturing jobs here, one cannot subsidize dying companies. Subsidies should only be given to companies which are trying to innovate and to make a new market or to carve out a niche for themselves. Innovation is the only way to stay competitive and that's how you create and maintain good paying manufacturing jobs.

Yeah, but these aren't dying companies. They're just companies that depend on public sector contracts. There aren't too many private sector buyers of subway cars or streetcars. Every other country has local content requirements for public transit purchases like that, so however great the free market ideology might be, having no requirements of our own will mean throwing a lot of hard-working people out of their jobs.

 

[Hydrogen]

The subway contract could have saved Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars, but it went to Bombardier because it is Canadian.

Money that's in the Canadian economy.

 

[drum118]

Money that's in the Canadian economy.

Really!!!!!!!!!!

40-42% of the contract is in Canada. The rest is in the US and off shore.

What does it cost transit riders and taxpayer to protect jobs in another city or Prov?

That nice low so call price is starting to climb just as I suspected it would.