W. K. Lis
Superstar
When the then new Peter Witt streetcars were to make their debut appearance in Toronto, they had to relaid the tracks, to prevent sideswipes. From Transit Toronto, at this link:
|
|
|
dowlingm
Senior Member
plenty of systems have more than one car type (Melbourne for example). It doesn't mean 20, but given Toronto's size even 3-4 could be handled without drama even with the 204 car order when you consider so many cities only have 20-40 LRVs in total.
44 North
Senior Member
Yeah, I guess you're right. I used to think adding a new type of vehicle (perhaps one incompatible with the rest of the system) would be ludicrous and problematic. And in many instances that is true. But one area I think a different fleet of streetcars may be wise is for QQ East and into the Port Lands. Reason? The necessary and astronomically-priced expansion of Union loop for the existing fleet of uni-directional streetcars.
If there was a way to avoid having to pour hundreds of $Millions into expanding that loop (plus another 2yr shutdown), I think it should be pursued. This may mean a surface alignment using bidirectional Flexity Freedom vehicles, or something else. But the current issue of expanding Union is why we're likely to not see streetcars in the East Bayfront any time soon. Nobody's happy with that. A different streetcar may be the resolution.
Personally, I'd like to see a Light Metro system - particularly if we're to expedite LDL and Port Lands development (with Olympics, Expo, or something else). And besides, area developers weren't even happy with the streetcar plan to begin with (hence why they backed Doug and the monorail vision). I don't agree with monorails, but there's no question the existing streetcar plan has problems.
smallspy
Senior Member
So instead of pouring hundreds of millions into expanding the loop, you'd rather that they spend a hundred million rebuilding the station to handle double-ended cars and then another several hundred millions of dollars to rebuild not only the tunnel underneath Bay and Queens Quay, but also every single intersection from Union Station back to a garage?
Proof?
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
And the Bombardier Flexity Outlook could be either converted to double-ended streetcars, or change the order on remaining vehicles to double-ended. There are double-ended Flexity Outlook in other cities.
They could even make the vehicles even longer.
This diagram is a double-ended Outlook from Strasbourg, France.
For different diagrams of streetcar/tram lengths see this link.
44 North
Senior Member
I'm not sure if or how it could work, but I'd like to see it explored at least. What I think might work is some kind of surface alignment - perhaps Freeland and Lake Shore could be used, or a Harbour St extension, or Yonge itself. The line wouldn't need to terminate right at/under Union, but close enough that it's w/in reasonable transfer distance. And instead of a loop, we could simply use an on-street crossover. Many of the streets around Lower Yonge will be rebuilt and reconfigured as part of the area's precinct plan regardless, and possibly as part of the Gardiner Hybrid, so perhaps this can be worked in. The Gardiner and Lower Yonge weren't considered when the QQE LRT was first conceived.
As for developers' desire for railed transit that isn't a streetcar, there was this UT interview with one of the developers for the 3C site, and which I personally found eye-opening. Perhaps Crignano wasn't speaking on behalf of other area developers, but considering Doug's "backroom vision" was beyond the mere discussion/napkin phase and got as far along as it did, I think there was definitely support behind it. This doesn't mean certain developers were being partisan, or that they even liked Doug. But I believe there was some opposition to WT and their direction. Here's what he had to say:
Is LRT being worked into the plans along Queens Quay and down Cherry Street?
Well, you've heard from the Fords, they don't like streetcars. Obviously no one likes buses. I know they are feverishly exploring, and Doug is involved firsthand. They're looking for a solution. It's not like they don't want public transit, they're big supporters of public transit. They want the right kind of public transit, and we're all for that.
Monorail?
That's been floating out there. Tanenbaum has his idea that he's floated out there which is a rail system of a sort, but streetcars are clearly an antiquated technology. It's not a new technology, but let's see what presents itself. Obviously Corus are counting on a public transit system, and George Brown has how many thousands of students?
I believe it's part of Hines contract with Waterfront Toronto that some rapid transit be built.
Everyone is reliant on public transit. We're an urban location, and it's not like the Fords don't agree with that, they do. They just don't like the idea of using this antiquated technology - the streetcar - in a modern day application. I don't disagree with that either, but we need a solution so let's find a solution that everyone is happy with, and it boils down to cost as well.
Are your architects involved in trying to find a possible solution?
Everyone has ideas. As you know, Bruce Kuwabara and Peter Clewes are involved with Waterfront Toronto, they're on the design committee. Everyone is keen on finding a solution, but trying to find that balance between a technology that's clearly state of the art, and trying to make it work within the budget parameters. It may require the involvement of the Province and at the Federal level, but if you're going to invest money in infrastructure, what better place to do it than the Toronto waterfront. Everyone speaks about the mistakes of the past that we made, on the western part of the waterfront. Well let's not make those mistakes again, let's try and correct them. I love our waterfront. I don't see anything wrong with our waterfront. Sure I take issue with some of the buildings that were built on the waterfront, but it works. People flock to the waterfront. I now live here. I walk there. I cycle down there frequently, and it's always filled with people. There are always people on the streets and there are things to do. HTO and Sugar Beach are magnets, and on a hot summer day they're filled to capacity.
Well, you've heard from the Fords, they don't like streetcars. Obviously no one likes buses. I know they are feverishly exploring, and Doug is involved firsthand. They're looking for a solution. It's not like they don't want public transit, they're big supporters of public transit. They want the right kind of public transit, and we're all for that.
Monorail?
That's been floating out there. Tanenbaum has his idea that he's floated out there which is a rail system of a sort, but streetcars are clearly an antiquated technology. It's not a new technology, but let's see what presents itself. Obviously Corus are counting on a public transit system, and George Brown has how many thousands of students?
I believe it's part of Hines contract with Waterfront Toronto that some rapid transit be built.
Everyone is reliant on public transit. We're an urban location, and it's not like the Fords don't agree with that, they do. They just don't like the idea of using this antiquated technology - the streetcar - in a modern day application. I don't disagree with that either, but we need a solution so let's find a solution that everyone is happy with, and it boils down to cost as well.
Are your architects involved in trying to find a possible solution?
Everyone has ideas. As you know, Bruce Kuwabara and Peter Clewes are involved with Waterfront Toronto, they're on the design committee. Everyone is keen on finding a solution, but trying to find that balance between a technology that's clearly state of the art, and trying to make it work within the budget parameters. It may require the involvement of the Province and at the Federal level, but if you're going to invest money in infrastructure, what better place to do it than the Toronto waterfront. Everyone speaks about the mistakes of the past that we made, on the western part of the waterfront. Well let's not make those mistakes again, let's try and correct them. I love our waterfront. I don't see anything wrong with our waterfront. Sure I take issue with some of the buildings that were built on the waterfront, but it works. People flock to the waterfront. I now live here. I walk there. I cycle down there frequently, and it's always filled with people. There are always people on the streets and there are things to do. HTO and Sugar Beach are magnets, and on a hot summer day they're filled to capacity.
Interesting. Good find. Keeping the contract, but tweaking it for a few modified Outlooks (that are compatible with the rest of the system) may be the answer for certain problems.
crs1026
Senior Member
It was a joke - the retro picture of PCC 4409 reminded me of how 'universal' the PCC design was in its day. That was the whole point of the PCC design.
It's interesting that the TTC track profiles are so much out-of-spec for today's transit vehicle industry, but that's the reality.
- Paul
the lemur
Senior Member
That's in Bratislava, which is getting Flexities specifically for a new line that will not have loops at the end, unlike all its existing streetcar lines:
https://goo.gl/maps/BDj31
the lemur
Senior Member
That's surprising and yet ... not. "Obviously" no one likes buses, streetcars are "clearly" antiquated, no mention of modern LRT, but we need the right kind of transit, but it "boils down to cost" (i.e., we want to cheap out as much as possible). So yeah, maybe a monorail, maybe nothing. We don't really care.
44 North
Senior Member
I didn't really interpret it that way, or that "nothing" would be optimal to them. Obviously the 3C owners, or any developers, would want railed transit. I just think they wanted to gamble on a mode that was a step above streetcars/LRT (and IMO the East Waterfront LRT is for all intents and purposes "modern LRT"). We never really got to see their costing, but I think track-for-track their monorail plan may've come in under the cost for the streetcar (I believe Drum118 has a file showing the costs of the different modes).
Obviously I'm a bit bias in that this is my ward, but I think the East Bayfront, LDL, 3C site, and Port Lands are worthy of a mode that is above streetcar/LRT - which is what I interpreted Crignano to be saying as well.
the lemur
Senior Member
The question is, if they're aiming for something above streetcar/LRT, is it because of potentially higher ridership or just for the sake of appearance? They want something more impressive than LRT, but it can't cost much?
44 North
Senior Member
I'm not sure the answer, but possibly higher ridership (because that can invariably equate to greater upzoning). Though I think grade-separation and speed were key in the decision. By being connected with an extension of the legacy streetcar system, the area would be somewhat like the western downtown waterfront - which is good, but a bit time consuming to reach and more of a grouping of peripheral neighbourhoods (instead of a major destination). Whereas if the eastern waterfront were to be connected with a fully grade-separated RT line linking to Union and Line 1, it could be more of a Canary Wharf-esque hub, or perhaps considered a natural continuation of the core's CBD.
There's no question the 509 Harbourfront LRT wasn't all it was hyped up to be. Speeds were lower than promised, and its LRT monicker and inclusion on the subway map was dropped after it was built. Now with the costly/lengthy reconfiguration there are still problems with speed and reliability. I guess Crignano's logic (and others like Cormier and Tenenbaum) is that 'we want to build an amazing destination here at the mouth of the Don...perhaps being connected with something a bit faster and more reliable than a streetcar would put us on the map. Obviously costs of expanding Union and tunneling under USRC at Cherry is an issue, and subways are out of the question. But what about a driverless LRV or monorail?'
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It was in the context of RoFo so it's obviously ledged on that. Now that he is out, look for it being framed in the context of ST instead. I am sure DRL would be just as popular so long as it's done in a route that is relatively proximate to his site.
AoD
AoD
the lemur
Senior Member
Looking at the map, I'd say your idea of using land alongside Lake Shore has potential - the big LCBO between Freeland and Cooper is going to be shut down and sold and there's still a lot of parking lot east of there, plus there's a plan to extend Harbour St, right? Maybe starting somewhere around Bay & Harbour, connected underground to the Queen's Quay stop on the Harbourfront line, heading east, elevated ... past/over Loblaws and the Waterfront condo development (Daniels), through the FedEx lot, the silos at Parliament, under Cherry ... pedestrian tunnel to the loop?
That would be about 2 km long ... maybe a monorail or elevated DLR-type service wouldn't be out of the question.
drum118
Superstar
There was a plan to have an LRT on the Lake Shore going back to 2004 in the Master Transit Plan for the Waterfront until TTC removed it around 2006 unknown to everyone when the EA was broken up into 3 plans at the request of the province.
LRT has been the selling point to developers as well being transit first for the area by Waterfront Toronto. Any developer opposing LRT is car thinking and not willing to have transit first for the area. Developers are crying the blues where parking spaces can't be sold and left holding the bag for those empty spots. Various developers are telling the city they will not comply with current parking requirement by going to zero to 50% of the current standard since they see no need for more in the first place.
If we stay at current standards, where are you going to put these cars as well dealing with gridlock 7/24??
Changchun from China has a contract to build 284 Subway cars for Boston T and is building a 220,000 sq foot building for $68 million in Springfield Mass. The plant will not be completed until 2018. I believe the first batch of cars will come from China until the plant is operational and not sure what will come from China for the rest of the order.
The contract is for 5 years and will employee 155 workers.
This is a State Project, not a Fed where no money is coming from the Fed for the cars.
Can't recall the price, but it was very low compare to other bidders who already have plants in the US. I feel this was a way to get their foot into the market and not the first one to do it.
Ontario could have done the same thing than protect jobs in Thunder Bay and trying to keep seats. Toronto wanted the work here than north, but had no say on the matter.
I am sure Changchun will not let a $68 million plant die after the contract is up.
I am sure Alston is now looking at setting up some sort of plant to deal with the next phase of cars needed for the Ottawa expansion as well going after cars in NA in the coming years.
If TTC goes out for an RFP on the extra 60 cars, Toronto may get the plant to build these cars as well what every may come down the road. Just think of seeing cars rolling off the assembling line onto TTC network than seeing them arrive by rail.
Hamilton would love a shot of building a plant there to replace the jobs it has lost over the years.
BBD is in dangerous water and only have themselves to blame for it. Time TTC and Toronto to put the gloves on to get the cars regardless where they come from.
LRT has been the selling point to developers as well being transit first for the area by Waterfront Toronto. Any developer opposing LRT is car thinking and not willing to have transit first for the area. Developers are crying the blues where parking spaces can't be sold and left holding the bag for those empty spots. Various developers are telling the city they will not comply with current parking requirement by going to zero to 50% of the current standard since they see no need for more in the first place.
If we stay at current standards, where are you going to put these cars as well dealing with gridlock 7/24??
Changchun from China has a contract to build 284 Subway cars for Boston T and is building a 220,000 sq foot building for $68 million in Springfield Mass. The plant will not be completed until 2018. I believe the first batch of cars will come from China until the plant is operational and not sure what will come from China for the rest of the order.
The contract is for 5 years and will employee 155 workers.
This is a State Project, not a Fed where no money is coming from the Fed for the cars.
Can't recall the price, but it was very low compare to other bidders who already have plants in the US. I feel this was a way to get their foot into the market and not the first one to do it.
Ontario could have done the same thing than protect jobs in Thunder Bay and trying to keep seats. Toronto wanted the work here than north, but had no say on the matter.
I am sure Changchun will not let a $68 million plant die after the contract is up.
I am sure Alston is now looking at setting up some sort of plant to deal with the next phase of cars needed for the Ottawa expansion as well going after cars in NA in the coming years.
If TTC goes out for an RFP on the extra 60 cars, Toronto may get the plant to build these cars as well what every may come down the road. Just think of seeing cars rolling off the assembling line onto TTC network than seeing them arrive by rail.
Hamilton would love a shot of building a plant there to replace the jobs it has lost over the years.
BBD is in dangerous water and only have themselves to blame for it. Time TTC and Toronto to put the gloves on to get the cars regardless where they come from.