Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Jaye101]

Then they're streetcars. Apart from having a higher capacity than busses, they're the exact same. No better speed, no better reliability. In fact, they have worse reliability because they're on rails.

Yeah, and a streetcar is a LRT, just like our subway cars are HRT. The fact that they're mix-traffic operation has no effect on this designation. The only reason reliability is an issue in Toronto's streetcar network is because the system is overloaded, there are not enough streetcars, there is poor management of scheduling and the lack of functioning transit priority signals along key corridors and locations. If you think an overloaded bus route more reliable I would like you to tell that to the people who ride the 512 bus every morning, they'd laugh.

 

[nfitz]

We have 18 stations and 7 LRT routes running through our downtown, how many station are located in Montreal's downtown?

It all depends on how you define downtown? I'd say 14 in Montreal; perhaps 17 if you include Metro Sherbrooke, Metro Beaudry, and Metro Papineau. In Toronto I'd say 14 downtown; perhaps 17 if you include Bathurst, Spadina, and Sherbourne; I'm not sure how you get 18, unless you included Queen's Quay. Suffice to say the station extent and count are amazingly similiar.

And no question that Toronto has Montreal beaten hand's down on surface transportation; both in extent and frequence; though not a single one of Toronto's downtown LRT routes qualifies as rapid transit ... even the Harbourfront streetcar only does 14 km/hr in rush-hour; still much better than Montreal though.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Yeah, and a streetcar is a LRT, just like our subway cars are HRT. The fact that they're mix-traffic operation has no effect on this designation. The only reason reliability is an issue in Toronto's streetcar network is because the system is overloaded, there are not enough streetcars, there is poor management of scheduling and the lack of functioning transit priority signals along key corridors and locations. If you think an overloaded bus route more reliable I would like you to tell that to the people who ride the 512 bus every morning, they'd laugh.

LRT has become a meaningless term... LRT can mean anything from a tiny heritage tourist tram to the Queen Streetcar, European trams, Transit City, C-Train/American style systems, automated systems like the DLR, metro systems, interurban trains, and diesel regional rail trains.

Heavy rail transit is also pretty meaningless considering that there are European trains running on the mainlines over there that are called "LRT" here

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yeah, and a streetcar is a LRT, just like our subway cars are HRT. The fact that they're mix-traffic operation has no effect on this designation. The only reason reliability is an issue in Toronto's streetcar network is because the system is overloaded, there are not enough streetcars, there is poor management of scheduling and the lack of functioning transit priority signals along key corridors and locations. If you think an overloaded bus route more reliable I would like you to tell that to the people who ride the 512 bus every morning, they'd laugh.

Okay, if that's your definition of LRT, then fine. I'll remember to totally forget about those 7 "LRT" routes you say downtown Toronto has, because your definition of LRT has nothing notable to separate it from busses. They don't go any faster, and they just have a higher capacity. Would you consider routes running articulated busses inherently different from routes using regular busses, or routes using regular busses inherently different from routes using short busses?

St. Clair is a cheap-ass example of bus vs. streetcar. Right now, the street is totally torn up and can barely be navigated by car, let alone bus.

 

[Ansem]

It all depends on how you define downtown? I'd say 14 in Montreal; perhaps 17 if you include Metro Sherbrooke, Metro Beaudry, and Metro Papineau. In Toronto I'd say 14 downtown; perhaps 17 if you include Bathurst, Spadina, and Sherbourne; I'm not sure how you get 18, unless you included Queen's Quay. Suffice to say the station extent and count are amazingly similiar.

And no question that Toronto has Montreal beaten hand's down on surface transportation; both in extent and frequence; though not a single one of Toronto's downtown LRT routes qualifies as rapid transit ... even the Harbourfront streetcar only does 14 km/hr in rush-hour; still much better than Montreal though.

Major Downtown streets
-------------------------------
East West

-Des Pins blvd...Route 144 every 30 minutes

-Sherbrooke...Route 24 Frequent service peak hours

-Maisonneuve (One way)...The Green line metro+Route 15 every 30 minutes
-Ste-Catherine (one Way)...Route 15 every 30 minutes

-Rene-Leveques Boul...4 BRT lines (535-935-410-430) in reserved lanes (frequent service)+ Route 150 every 30 minutes+ Route 505 every 15 minutes

-St-Jacques/Viger...Orange Metro Line+Route 36 every 30 minutes

North South

-Papineau st... Route 45 Frequent service bus

-Berri and St-Denis...Route 30 and 31 every 30 minutes + Route 505 every 15min

-St-Laurent and Jeanne-Mance (one ways)...Route 55 Frequent service bus

-Park ave and Bleury (one ways)...2 BRT (535-935) on reserved lane + Route 129 frequent service peak hour

-University Ave...Route 61 and 168 Every 30 minutes

-Peel St...Route 107 every 30 minutes and 505 every 15 minutes

-Guy st and Cote des neiges... BRT 535 Frequent service and other routes every 30 minutes

-Atwater...Many routes every 30 minutes+ Green and Orange line

--------------------------------

Toronto should have made Dundas, Queen and Kind Downtown one ways and have the streetcars in reserved lanes

 

[hbl33]

It's not the movement for subways that died but responsible governance. I get tired of people making money the issue. The cost of public infrastructure is an investment and we need to stop funding 'luxuries' when basic essentials are needed: why are we building bike lanes when we need more transit (sorry to pick on bike lanes, it's just the example of skewed prioritization that comes immediately to mind). We need to hold politicians accountable who given the choice are almost always going to direct funding to the demands of interest groups and pressure groups who repay them with votes rather than spending responsibly in the interest of the larger, and unfortunately apathetic, public.

Over the past ten or so years the EHealth scandal provincially and the Sponsorship scandal federally together alone would have gone a long way for transit expansion without even a single extra penny being directed away from legitimate programs. How much other waste and corruption is there that we are not or have not been aware of? Ponder this the next time you're stuck in traffic for two hours, late for the very job you need in order to pay all those taxes.

Toronto's lack of subways and the region's lack of an adequate and sustainable integrated system of public transit is about nothing other than political malaise and corruption and that is the simple truth.

Canada over-focuses on being a country with well-being citizens when it demeans our demand for higher quality transit. No country is a good country without a balance of well-established infrastructure with thriving economy, trouble-free health policies and low corruption of government. Money has got nothing to do with the demand, yet the gov.t does because it is industrially-backward nation. As you said, bike lanes are an example; yes I agree with that...

MY POINT IS, is that like Japan's burden grows among the youth, Canada/Ontario/Toronto is screwing itself in infrastructure, health and education spendings (Damnton McGuilty) and the youth are forced to alleviate this alone. See this guy's comment below (from G&M on the "Madrid Miracle")

I didn't mean for this to get into a debate over how useful electrification is. My point was, and remains, that the benefits of these infrastructure megaprojects is often far less than they would seem. The most obvious example is Japan. Their road, rail and air transportation networks are pretty much the greatest on Earth. This forum is full of infrastructure fetishists, so I won't go into to much but whether it's Kansai International, the Tokyo Bay Tunnel, Seikan Tunnel or the Honshu-Shikoku bridge system they are simply incredible pieces of engineering.

By and large though, these projects haven't benefited the Japanese people. Their public debt is now second to only Zimbabwe, their health spending is far below OECD average, income growth has averaged 1% p.a. over the past decade, they have social security systems systemically underfunded in favor of politically expedient infrastructure and debt repayment and so forth. It's inequitable in that it shifts funds away from society's poorest and into a class of politically well connected developers, it screws the youth who are now saddled with ruinous debt levels and most of stunts investment in more productive areas of the economy.

Canada's not at that point, and we probably could use more infrastructure here and there, but these things have an awful habit of having their anemic benefits papered over with claims of "national vision." Whether it's Ontario's nuclear system, Quebec's overdeveloped hydro system, Mirabel, Confederation Bridge, the St.Lawrence Seaway or the Arrow we've got quite a strong history of completely ignoring proper cost/benefit thinking and opting for over-built infrastructure projects just to soothe our national paranoia.

 

[Rainforest]

Yeah, and a streetcar is a LRT, just like our subway cars are HRT. The fact that they're mix-traffic operation has no effect on this designation.

Although you can extend the term "LRT" to include any rail service that can operate on-street, the established (and more useful I believe) system of definitions makes a distinction between "streetcar" and "LRT".

"Streetcar": vehicles that run on street, on rail, and mostly in mixed traffic.

"LRT": vehicles that run on rail, but separated from general traffic. That means either dedicated lanes on street, or fully separated right-of-way. "LRT" also might (does not have to) include traffic signal priority, wider stop spacing than for streetcars and regular buses, and the possibility of using long trains.

From that standpoint, Spadina and Queen's Quay are low-end LRT routes (dedicated lanes, but no useful traffic signal priority, frequent stops, can't use long trains). All other "legacy" streetcar routes are just that - streetcars.

The only reason reliability is an issue in Toronto's streetcar network is because the system is overloaded, there are not enough streetcars, there is poor management of scheduling and the lack of functioning transit priority signals along key corridors and locations.

More streetcars and better scheduling would be helpful to a degree. But transit signal priority for the mixed-traffic routes is (I believe) a fantasy. There are so many signaled intersections in downtown, it is impossible to synchronize them. The streetcar will zoom through one traffic light just to be delayed at the next 300 m ahead. There will be conflicts between E-W and N-S streetcar routes. And, streetcars are often hold up between the traffic signals, too, because the curb lane is occupied by parked cars, and other cars or trucks have to maneuver around those.

 

[Rainforest]

... Torontonians are unlikely to like the idea of a raised subway, even up Don Mills...

That option should be, at least, considered. A bare concrete slab like Gardiner won't do. However, I've seen that Vienna's U6 subway line largely runs on elevated guideway along regular streets. The guideway does not look ugly, as it is integrated into the streetscape.

Of course, making it nice will increase the cost per km, but perhaps it will still be cheaper than a tunnel.

 

[Jaye101]

There is no distinction between streetcar and LRT, streetcar is a blanket term used for many light rail vehicles and lines. Regardless, arguing about it isn't going to conclude anything. These are all just terms that reflect very differently in reality. Yes LRT can mean a wide range of things, however streetcars offer a higher level of service and reliability when done correctly. Traffic on these routes has increased to the point where streetcar routes don't seem to be the most efficient means of public transportation, yes. However, a lot of that will change when the new LRT vehicles come and there are significant changes in operation (boarding), & capacity of the lines.

 

[Dan416]

There is no distinction between streetcar and LRT, streetcar is a blanket term used for many light rail vehicles and lines. Regardless, arguing about it isn't going to conclude anything. These are all just terms that reflect very differently in reality. Yes LRT can mean a wide range of things, however streetcars offer a higher level of service and reliability when done correctly. Traffic on these routes has increased to the point where streetcar routes don't seem to be the most efficient means of public transportation, yes. However, a lot of that will change when the new LRT vehicles come and there are significant changes in operation (boarding), & capacity of the lines.

I think you're giving the new LRVs too much credit. All-door boarding will help a bit, but they'll still be stuck crawling in traffic. All our streetcars should have exclusive lanes if the street is congested.

 

[Paleo]

$10-12 billion does seem to be an inordinately high number.

Just doing napkin calculations right now for an Eglinton East-Spadina phase it might be $3-3.5 billion not including train sets or platform doors or bridges across the Don (there would be three of those). Fifteen train sets would add a little over $300M. Storage could be done at the end of the line like they were thinking of doing in RHC.

Sheppard numbers as a point of reference, the Sheppard station rebuild cost $180M, the tunneling and track work $150M for 6.5 km.

 

[GenerationW]

Giambone was the first one within TTC to raise the possibility of the DRL, when he commented on it being a necessity after 2018.

He has also been pushing ahead with the Spadina extension, has had the TTC working on the Yonge extension, and is behind the new subway under Eglinton, which is the biggest subway project in this city since they started the Bloor-Danforth almost a half-century ago!

If you want to attack him, you need to have some basis in truth

Well, if needing to have some basis in truth is the standard, it should be pointed out that Giambrone's true commitment to the DRL is ambiguous at best (and possibly irrelevant since he probably won't be TTC chairman when the DRL's fate is decided -- if it ever is), and that he is clearly opposed to the Yonge extension.

And if you are using the commonly accepted Toronto definition of subway (and how could you not be?), it's interesting to hear you say that Eglinton is now deemed to be a subway project instead of an LRT project, and presumably will be using subway trains rather than LRTs. I can't find evidence of such an abrupt change on any of the relevant websites, so where did you hear of this fascinating development?

 

[MetroMan]

Summary Please?

I don't mean to just jump in here and demand a full summary of this entire thread, but as much as I'd like to, I don't have time available to go through the many pages to decipher the effect -- if any -- that this Advocacy group has had on the current plans for our subway network.

Would somebody be so kind as to summarize the work that the DRL Advocacy Group has done and any progress that has been achieved? Are the TTC and the different levels of government listening? Are we closer to a DRL than before this effort?

As far a I recall, the DRL wasn't even on the radar. Now, it seems to have been mentioned several times in the media lately.

 

[M II A II R II K]

There was a recent call to rebuild Bloor/Yonge Station for an estimated $500 million, but then it was considered more worthwhile to build a DRL instead for that kind of money.

And that has precipitated a recent interest in pursuing it again.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

There was a recent call to rebuild Bloor/Yonge Station for an estimated $500 million, but then it was considered more worthwhile to build a DRL instead for that kind of money.

And that has precipitated a recent interest in pursuing it again.

Just to add to that...rebuilding Bloor/Yonge station would be extremely tricky, as it is directly underneath the Hudson's Bay Centre