News   Jun 14, 2024
 2.1K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 803     0 

Rob Ford wants subways, not streetcars

I am quite often on a hybrid bus considering that I dont live close to the subway, and to be honest, they're relatively comfortable. And all of GO train, subway, ICTS and streetcar does vibrate alot and makes a lot of noise. I've been on bus rides so soothing in the past that I've fallen asleep and often went past my stop.

Ever tried drinking coffee on a bus? How about on a streetcar, or on the subway? There is a very clear loser in this basic measure of ride smoothness.
There are arguments to be made for bus superiority, but ride comfort is not one of them. When you make plainly false claims like that it damages the credibility of your entire position.

As for those vehicle price comparisons...one bus does not equal one lrv.
 
Ever tried drinking coffee on a bus? How about on a streetcar, or on the subway? There is a very clear loser in this basic measure of ride smoothness.
There are arguments to be made for bus superiority, but ride comfort is not one of them. When you make plainly false claims like that it damages the credibility of your entire position.

As for those vehicle price comparisons...one bus does not equal one lrv.

Jarrett Walker would like to give you some harsh reality about streetcar over-dependence.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

And this is a quote from Terry Parker, who is supposedly, a resident of Portland.

Jarrett,

Your post is right on target! Personally I agree with most of your comments and conclusions - including requiring the property owners on the streets where streetcars operate help pay for them. However I disagree that streetcars are best for Portland. Additionally, there are a few of things that were not said.

1. Streetcars crawling along in mixed traffic and obstructing motor vehicle travel lanes when boarding passengers create additional congestion thereby gumming up the streets on which they operate. Nationally, motor vehicle engines idling in stop and go traffic wastes 2.3 billion gallons of fuel a year. Keeping the traffic flowing on a street must be viewed as a priority. Therefore, streetcars do NOT belong on high traffic volume arterial streets.

2. It is highly deceptive and fictitious to suggest that streetcars have promoted private sector development. In actuality, the new development that has occurred along the present Portland Streetcar route is to a large degree due to taxpayer funded subsidies to the developers, property tax abatements and cheap land provided by the Portland Development Commission. Given those same incentives, new development could easily occur anywhere in the city.

3 The ridership numbers on the Portland Streetcar are skewed because the majority of the service is free to the users, paid for with taxpayer and motorist paid subsidies. Additionally, there is a high degree of fare evasion due to the majority of the operation taking place in Fareless Square.

4. Comprehensive transit planning Portland has been lost. What is currently happening is that a route is chosen for a specific mode such as light rail or the streetcar by a stacked deck of group pushing their own manipulative agenda. An effort is made to justify that route by wedging the rails into the current transportation infrastructure, then projecting increased (and taxpayer subsidized) density and reworking other transit operations to feed the system with the purpose of manipulating the numbers so the new service will pass muster with the Feds.

Specific transit planning must start with purpose and need with mode choice coming NOT first, but last. What is missing in Portland is an in-depth comprehensive comparison study of the overall cost effectiveness of all modes for transit for each route before a mode choice is actually made. As an example, instead of spending $10M per mile, an electric trolley bus system plan that in its most basic form only requires overhead wires be installed over the streets may very well be the most cost effective for taxpayers. The best example I can give occurred in the 1970s when planning for Eastside transit alternatives and the Banfield Freeway occurred. .Alternatives for transit considered ranged from doing nothing to special treatment on local streets, a HOV lane on the freeway, a bus way and light rail. Alternatives for the freeway included doing nothing, just moving the narrow lanes over to accommodate space for a transit project and various upgrades. What eventually came out of the four year comprehensive study is what we have today - light rail all the way to Gresham (it was originally only planned to go to Gateway), and upgrades to the freeway that included safety improvements and widening the facility and lanes, but to less than full interstate standards. Many of the costs (such as grading and over crossings) to construct light rail and make freeway improvements were shared thereby making the over all project extremely cost effective.
 
Last edited:
Ever tried drinking coffee on a bus? How about on a streetcar, or on the subway? There is a very clear loser in this basic measure of ride smoothness.
There are arguments to be made for bus superiority, but ride comfort is not one of them. When you make plainly false claims like that it damages the credibility of your entire position.

As for those vehicle price comparisons...one bus does not equal one lrv.

How is anecdotal testimony a false claim? It's my observational analysis after having ridden on all of the above modes for a good portion of my whole life. I just don't think one's spilt coffee is worth spending 8 times the cost of one hybrid-electric bus for one LRV that may transport one and a half times more riders per trip but is cost prohibitive for us to even be entertaining in this economic climate. Tried and tested methods often rule the day for a reason.
 
Are you really going to stick to your claim that buses are more comfortable than rail? We've all ridden buses...we know that's not true.

Again...bus : lrv purchasing isn't a one : one thing though. You need to purchase multiple buses to do the job of one lrv.
Then there's the lifespan, and the maintenance costs, and the drivers' wages. These numbers have been run by more capable people than yourself, and it's not nearly as lop-sided as you claim.
 
Are you really going to stick to your claim that buses are more comfortable than rail? We've all ridden buses...we know that's not true.

Again...bus : lrv purchasing isn't a one : one thing though. You need to purchase multiple buses to do the job of one lrv.
Then there's the lifespan, and the maintenance costs, and the drivers' wages. These numbers have been run by more capable people than yourself, and it's not nearly as lop-sided as you claim.

I have owned the same electric lawn-mower for the past 25 years, with no repairs other than blade sharpening and a few simple cut cord repairs. Neighbour is on his third gas mower.
 
Streetcars are more more comfortable than buses but something like York's VIVA BRT will be more reliable. Why? If there is an accident anywhere along a streetcar route everything comes to a complete halt and the whole system backs up unlike a VIVA BRT system.
 
I have owned the same electric lawn-mower for the past 25 years, with no repairs other than blade sharpening and a few simple cut cord repairs. Neighbour is on his third gas mower.

Come on, let's not get ridiculous here. I prefer cooking with a gas barbecue but that doesn't mean I like buses better than streetcars.

Seriously, though, has anyone ever considered that maybe a monorail is the best option? Just an idea I had...
 
I think the point is that W.K.'s neighbour thought he was being economically smart when he bought the gas mower for 20% cheaper than the electric one.
 
Are you really going to stick to your claim that buses are more comfortable than rail? We've all ridden buses...we know that's not true.

Again...bus : lrv purchasing isn't a one : one thing though. You need to purchase multiple buses to do the job of one lrv.
Then there's the lifespan, and the maintenance costs, and the drivers' wages. These numbers have been run by more capable people than yourself, and it's not nearly as lop-sided as you claim.

You didn't even read my post(s) did you? I never said that buses are the most comfortable, but I personally do not find them to be any less comfortable than riding in any vehicle in motion. If one Orion hybrid-electric bus lasts for 18-21 years and one Bombardier LRV lasts 30 years, then shockingly the bus with the shorter life span is the better investment. The HEVs available for sale are very cost competitive with similar conventional vehicles. Any cost premium that may be associated with HEVs of the future can be off-set by overall fuel savings and possible incentives. LRV has higher maintenance costs, and higher initial costs. And I've never witnessed one broken down bus shutting down an entire route (or corridor) for a significant lapse of time. I'd imagine it takes more skill to operate an LRV so also you'd be paying the driver a higher hourly wage. You may gripe and say that at least LRT translates to less drivers required for the service, but fail to recognize other workers will still be needed as security and/or as fare inspectors. All of the underground stops particularly will be manned. And at their decreased frequency, LRT results in longer wait-times for service. Buses can run at as short as 10 second frequency. 4 buses can show up at a 150 m platform at the same time; LRVs have to wait for the vehicle ahead of them to pull off first before they can move into position to let off and on passengers. Worst when the tracks stop, so too does the rapid service, meaning the enforcement of a transfer onto buses to complete one's journey.

I find it passingly strange to have been shoehorned into the "BRT" camp, because I don't actually see myself as an advocate of one technology or the other. I love rail. But I only like rail when it is done right - I intensely dislike most of the Red Rocket system, for example. And I recognize that doing it right costs a lot of money. So I see my approach as fundamentally practical. I vary my opinion based on the individual city in question (though I am far from knowledgeable about all facets of every city). As I see it, building a BRT/subway network makes sense in a city like Toronto because:

a) There is a lot of money to be had from reduced travel times, more reliable product deliveries, increased economic productivity, increased employment, improved work conditions near corridors earmarked for transit

b) The sprawling size of the city means more area to cover, and

c) The existing bus network is really good, so nobody is suffering over the next couple of decades waiting for rail (with the noted exception of UGCs like downtown Toronto, Midtown and Scarborough Ctr)
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that W.K.'s neighbour thought he was being economically smart when he bought the gas mower for 20% cheaper than the electric one.

His neighbour was smarter because the cost of buying a shiny new one periodically as it was needed was less than the gamble of having to maintain that dingy, rusted electric one over a quarter century.
 
Last edited:
You didn't even read my post(s) did you? I never said that buses are the most comfortable, but I personally do not find them to be any less comfortable than riding in any vehicle in motion. If one Orion hybrid-electric bus lasts for 18-21 years and one Bombardier LRV lasts 30 years, then shockingly the bus with the shorter life span is the better investment. The HEVs available for sale are very cost competitive with similar conventional vehicles. Any cost premium that may be associated with HEVs of the future can be off-set by overall fuel savings and possible incentives. LRV has higher maintenance costs, and higher initial costs. And I've never witnessed one broken down bus shutting down an entire route (or corridor) for a significant lapse of time. I'd imagine it takes more skill to operate an LRV so also you'd be paying the driver a higher hourly wage. You may gripe and say that at least LRT translates to less drivers required for the service, but fail to recognize other workers will still be needed as security and/or as fare inspectors. All of the underground stops particularly will be manned. And at their decreased frequency, LRT results in longer wait-times for service. Buses can run at as short as 10 second frequency. 4 buses can show up at a 150 m platform at the same time; LRVs have to wait for the vehicle ahead of them to pull off first before they can move into position to let off and on passengers. Worst when the tracks stop, so too does the rapid service, meaning the enforcement of a transfer onto buses to complete one's journey.

I find it passingly strange to have been shoehorned into the "BRT" camp, because I don't actually see myself as an advocate of one technology or the other. I love rail. But I only like rail when it is done right - I intensely dislike most of the Red Rocket system, for example. And I recognize that doing it right costs a lot of money. So I see my approach as fundamentally practical. I vary my opinion based on the individual city in question (though I am far from knowledgeable about all facets of every city). As I see it, building a BRT/subway network makes sense in a city like Toronto because:

a) There is a lot of money to be had from reduced travel times, more reliable product deliveries, increased economic productivity, increased employment, improved work conditions near corridors earmarked for transit

b) The sprawling size of the city means more area to cover, and

c) The existing bus network is really good, so nobody is suffering over the next couple of decades waiting for rail (with the noted exception of UGCs like downtown Toronto, Midtown and Scarborough Ctr)

I agree with all, except few bus routes. Even with streetcars, the ridership is too excessive to suffice in long, heavily congested, non-rail arteries such as Bathurst, Sheppard (from Weston to Kennedy), Eglinton and even Dufferin! All in my experience.

IF "LRT" is to be effective, it needs to be implemented in the same fashion as BRT: multiple lanes in each direction, with one passing rail and the other reserved for station platform. Also, street segregation is a must (not just separate lanes reserved for streetcar/buses apart from cars), and where streetcar routes exist, they are to be designated "car-free zones". Otherwise, it's another "Red Rocket" snails all over T.O.!
 
Last edited:
Somehow I don't imagine it's possible to build reserved lanes PLUS passing lanes on Dufferin, Bathurst, or Sheppard, regardless of if we are talking bus or rail. There's just not enough road width to make this possible.

If the rails have proper switches, routing around an obstruction is possible for an LRT. Such switches exist in almost every LRT and streetcar network which have double-ended vehicles.
 
I'd imagine it takes more skill to operate an LRV so also you'd be paying the driver a higher hourly wage.
All TTC operators earn the same wage regardless of vehicle. I also have no idea what would make an LRT more difficult to operate than a bus?

You may gripe and say that at least LRT translates to less drivers required for the service, but fail to recognize other workers will still be needed as security and/or as fare inspectors. All of the underground stops particularly will be manned.
Why would a BRT providing the same service require any fewer security, station, or ticket inspection staff?

The existing bus network is really good, so nobody is suffering over the next couple of decades waiting for rail (with the noted exception of UGCs like downtown Toronto, Midtown and Scarborough Ctr)

Please, try squeeze yourself into Finch bus at rush hour. Then I'd like to see you say upgrades can wait a few more decades.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that I agree about kettal is that we don't need any more buses. At least in south of Eglinton.

That said, however, doesn't mean we won't need subways in favour of streetcars. Or put LRT as priority ahead of HRT.
T.O. must finish the original MoTo plan before even advancing streetcar development.

What happened to most of streetcar rails? Landsdowne streetcar line reaches to subway, but aren't being served at all. Mount Pleasant rail dissapeared; Harbord faced the same fate; only Roncy is getting a major fancy reconstruction. Why not restore the original streetcar lines, expand northward to Eglinton, and the existing streets with rail should be car-free! Isn't "LRT-huggers" goal is to eliminate much car/bus traffic as possible? If so, why leave it status-quo?
 
Last edited:
That said, however, doesn't mean we won't need subways in favour of streetcars. Or put LRT as priority ahead of HRT.
So are you suggesting that St Clair West or Finch should be subways? It's a question of the right tool for the right job, and priority should be given to where it is needed, not HRT before LRT or vice versa.

T.O. must finish the original MoTo plan before even advancing streetcar development.
whats moto?

What happened to most of streetcar rails? Landsdowne streetcar line reaches to subway, but aren't being served at all. Mount Pleasant rail dissapeared; Harbord faced the same fate; only Roncy is getting a major fancy reconstruction. Why not restore the original streetcar lines, expand northward to Eglinton, and the existing streets with rail should be car-free! Isn't "LRT-huggers" goal is to eliminate much car/bus traffic as possible? If so, why leave it status-quo?
Most of them had ridership shrinkage following the subways building, to the point that a bus is the better option. Again it's the right tool for the right job. I would love to see a streetcar return to Mt. Pleasant but it's not a priority and would likely get a lot of opposition from the nimbies.
 

Back
Top