TTC: Flexity Streetcars Testing & Delivery (Bombardier)

[scarberiankhatru]

Thank you for confirming you don't know straw men when you see them (or see them when they're not there), MisterF.

Whoaccio was correct when he said "I think there is quite a bit of snobbishness about the matter though." This is definitely a factor in general 'bus vs rail' debates, but we're not talking about general transit sentiments, we're talking about Toronto. Certainly, there's some people here who wouldn't be caught dead on a bus, but far fewer people than in the cities that were used as study cases in the articles you linked to (and most people who won't take buses probably won't take any public transit at all, though some might take the special sanitized light rail lines built in the States, the kind that are designed to revitalize and to serve middle class white people and tourists rather than the city at large). In Toronto, millions of people gladly and willingly squish themselves onto buses; almost every bus route is at capacity during rush hour. Clearly, people in Toronto are not opposed to taking the bus (the occasional forum complaint that "eww, buses are suburban" notwithstanding). In Toronto, there's really no association between streetcars and Euro[/useful] style light rail. It's unfair to ascribe "light rail"'s benefits to something like the Queen streetcar, and then write off criticisms of the Queen streetcar as "well, that's not light rail!" but it happens very often on this forum. I'd probably agree that light rail is typically better than buses in multiple categories, but I'd make a firm cleavage between streetcars and light rail before doing so.

Spadina's ridership went up, yes, but how much of that was due to increased capacity? Or due to the increased visibility of the ROW, of the underground connection, and of the occasional promotion as a rapid transit line? Similar improvements could be done with buses...I think the Finch West bus should be replaced with streetcars (well, it should be light rail but I doubt they'll build light rail), but I'll be the first to admit that it could just as easily be replaced by longer articulated buses, using all-door boarding, running in a ROW, and effortlessly connecting with the subway underground (and not in a bus terminal hundreds of feet away). Streetcars don't have a monopoly over comfort, capacity, visibility, etc.

 

[MisterF]

Okay Scarberian, you obviously need more explanation. A straw man argument is when someone attacks what they present as their opponent's position, when they're in fact attacking a position not held by their opponent. It's a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, a caricature of the opponent's position to make it easier to knock down, then claim that the original point has been refuted. It in fact fails to refute the original opinion. For example:

Streetcars don't have a monopoly over comfort, capacity, visibility, etc.

You're implying that streetcar proponents believe that streetcars have a monopoly over comfort, capacity, visibility, etc. No streetcar proponent feels this way. But by presenting their opinions in this light, it makes it look as if you're refuting their position. Another example:

every place could look like the old city of Toronto if only they replaced their buses and subways and everything else with streetcars.

The above was presented as the opinions of streetcar advocates when it in fact is a straw man, a deliberate misrepesentation to make their opinions easier to refute by making them look less credible.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

You're implying that streetcar proponents believe that streetcars have a monopoly over comfort, capacity, visibility, etc. No streetcar proponent feels this way. But by presenting their opinions in this light, it makes it look as if you're refuting their position.

It is your opinion, though. "Streetcars have several advantages over buses, including comfort, capacity, reliability, and attractiveness to riders." Streetcar proponents like yourself believe moving from buses to streetcars is a step forward, yet you regularly fail to acknowledge that in the same way that streetcars can be improved into light rail, buses can be improved, too. For one thing, Finch East and a half dozen other bus routes already move as many people as any of the streetcar lines and they do so with plain old buses in mixed traffic.

You also seem to think that bus proponents want to remove streetcar lines and replace them with absolutely nothing more than carbon copies of something like the Eglinton West bus...no all-door boarding, no longer vehicles, no swipe passes, no transit signal priority, no ROWs, no additional GO or subway lines, no improvements of any kind. Talk about straw men.

"every place could look like the old city of Toronto if only they replaced their buses and subways and everything else with streetcars."......The above was presented as the opinions of streetcar advocates when it in fact is a straw man, a deliberate misrepesentation to make their opinions easier to refute by making them look less credible.

Again, that may not be your opinion, but it is their opinion; that urban landscapes like the old city of Toronto's are only attainable given streetcars, that the old city of Toronto looks the way it does and functions the way it does because of streetcars. Transit City's streetcar lines and the Avenues' form are explicitly linked, both in planning documents and by people in this and other threads. These opinions are not credible.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

Again, that may not be your opinion, but it is their opinion ...

Well, one should argue with the points presented by a particular opponent, rather than with an averaged opinion of an averaged / imaginary light rail supporter. There is no subway party, LRT party, or busway party in Ontario. Each participant of this forum is a freelancer, and is not compelled to uphold in full a policy of any faction.

The Avenue / LRT linkage is an overshoot. The intensity, and more so the character of a street's development depends on a number of factors, transit being just one of them. If other factors are right, then either subways or light rail or buses can support urban forms and high density.

The Avenue-isation argument alone is not sufficient to justify LRT, but the combination of factors (cost, capacity, pollution containment, dependency on gas prices) makes LRT the preferred choice, over either subways or buses, for a number of routes within Toronto / 416. At the same time, busways can be very useful in some other parts of GTA.

 

[Hydrogen]

my fault.

here are some corrected ones in an environment you all know.

Thanks for the rendering effort smuncky. Looks cool - maybe too cool.

In no way did I hold you responsible for maintaining the scenery from Dune.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Well, one should argue with the points presented by a particular opponent, rather than with an averaged opinion of an averaged / imaginary light rail supporter. There is no subway party, LRT party, or busway party in Ontario. Each participant of this forum is a freelancer, and is not compelled to uphold in full a policy of any faction.

The Avenue / LRT linkage is an overshoot. The intensity, and more so the character of a street's development depends on a number of factors, transit being just one of them. If other factors are right, then either subways or light rail or buses can support urban forms and high density.

The Avenue-isation argument alone is not sufficient to justify LRT, but the combination of factors (cost, capacity, pollution containment, dependency on gas prices) makes LRT the preferred choice, over either subways or buses, for a number of routes within Toronto / 416. At the same time, busways can be very useful in some other parts of GTA.

I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with what I've posted. You're not going to win arguments in other threads by cherry-picking points I've made in this one and attacking them (flimsily, I might add). I wasn't even responding to MisterF when I posted the comment he quoted. I was responding to the insistence of Earlscourt Lad and Red Rocket 191 and others that streetcars generated the low-rise mixed use main street neighbourhoods like those in the old city of Toronto and are the only way to generate such urban forms in the suburbs. Unlike many in this and other threads, I do not believe there is a special relationship between streetcars and urban form and that ultimate control over the urban form lies in council and planning (building mixed-use main street areas was standard in the pre-war period). And there are explicit links between Transit City and the Avenues, like the official plan amendments calling for Avenues designation along Transit City routes (which are mostly places that were not originally cited as appropriate for Avenues growth).

 

[MisterF]

It is your opinion, though. "Streetcars have several advantages over buses, including comfort, capacity, reliability, and attractiveness to riders."

Compare that quote with what you said:
"streetcars have a monopoly over comfort, capacity, visibility, etc."

See the difference?

Streetcar proponents like yourself believe moving from buses to streetcars is a step forward, yet you regularly fail to acknowledge that in the same way that streetcars can be improved into light rail, buses can be improved, too. For one thing, Finch East and a half dozen other bus routes already move as many people as any of the streetcar lines and they do so with plain old buses in mixed traffic.

Actually Finch East carries fewer people than the King, Spadina, Carlton, and Queen streetcars. Four of the five busiest surface routes are streetcar routes. This despite the fact that they tend to run in slower traffic with mostly single door loading.

http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/ridership_cost_stats_bus_streetcar_05_06.pdf

Buses can be improved but no bus can handle as many people as a modern LRV, all other things being equal.

You also seem to think that bus proponents want to remove streetcar lines and replace them with absolutely nothing more than carbon copies of something like the Eglinton West bus...no all-door boarding, no longer vehicles, no swipe passes, no transit signal priority, no ROWs, no additional GO or subway lines, no improvements of any kind. Talk about straw men.

What I'm arguing is that streetcars are better than buses. Some, Hipster Duck for example (sorry to single you out Hipster), have debated just the opposite. GO and subway lines are irrelevant to that debate. And any of those improvements to buses you mention can also be done to streetcars, so that's a moot point.

Again, that may not be your opinion, but it is their opinion; that urban landscapes like the old city of Toronto's are only attainable given streetcars, that the old city of Toronto looks the way it does and functions the way it does because of streetcars. Transit City's streetcar lines and the Avenues' form are explicitly linked, both in planning documents and by people in this and other threads. These opinions are not credible.

Nope, not once on this thread has anyone said anything to the effect of "every place could look like the old city of Toronto if only they replaced their buses and subways and everything else with streetcars."

 

[CGM]

Looks like the wheels came off already.... and it hasn't even seen Canadian winter.
But I still like it, and it fits Toronto better than other proposals.
Thanks Smuncky!

 

[Dan416]

I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with what I've posted. You're not going to win arguments in other threads by cherry-picking points I've made in this one and attacking them (flimsily, I might add). I wasn't even responding to MisterF when I posted the comment he quoted. I was responding to the insistence of Earlscourt Lad and Red Rocket 191 and others that streetcars generated the low-rise mixed use main street neighbourhoods like those in the old city of Toronto and are the only way to generate such urban forms in the suburbs. Unlike many in this and other threads, I do not believe there is a special relationship between streetcars and urban form and that ultimate control over the urban form lies in council and planning (building mixed-use main street areas was standard in the pre-war period). And there are explicit links between Transit City and the Avenues, like the official plan amendments calling for Avenues designation along Transit City routes (which are mostly places that were not originally cited as appropriate for Avenues growth).

Well said.

 

[Whoaccio]

What I'm arguing is that streetcars are better than buses. Some, Hipster Duck for example (sorry to single you out Hipster), have debated just the opposite. GO and subway lines are irrelevant to that debate. And any of those improvements to buses you mention can also be done to streetcars, so that's a moot point.

If you go by the typical transit hierachy (bus>LRV>subway>commuter rail) yes. Transit isn't a hierarchy though. Trams, aren't necessarily worse than buses. They have their niche, just like every other mode. My point is that their niche most definitely isn't where they are being used. Oddly, I think we are using buses where trams would be successful and vice versa with trams.

What are the advantages of trams? Speed, capacity, comfort.
What are the advantages of buses? Cheapness, flexibility.

Any of the current legacy routes are never going to be able to use current CLRVs to their potential. Too much traffic, too much construction, too many local stops. Aside from increasing the amount of seats per vehicle and increasing headways (lowering congestion), I don't see how a new generation of streetcars is going to help the problem. The problem isn't the trams, it is the route. I don't think buses will help, I just think they wont cost millions to have sit in traffic, they won't get caught behind a broken down car and they won't take millions in street repairs per year.

 

[adma]

I figured out a nickname: "The Rolling Vajayjay"

 

[Whoaccio]

I believe it is supposed to be evocative of a champagne flute (Reims is the center of Champagne).

 

[MisterF]

If you go by the typical transit hierachy (bus>LRV>subway>commuter rail) yes. Transit isn't a hierarchy though. Trams, aren't necessarily worse than buses. They have their niche, just like every other mode. My point is that their niche most definitely isn't where they are being used. Oddly, I think we are using buses where trams would be successful and vice versa with trams.

What are the advantages of trams? Speed, capacity, comfort.
What are the advantages of buses? Cheapness, flexibility.

There's no reason to believe that buses would be better on slow downtown routes than streetcars.

Any of the current legacy routes are never going to be able to use current CLRVs to their potential. Too much traffic, too much construction, too many local stops. Aside from increasing the amount of seats per vehicle and increasing headways (lowering congestion), I don't see how a new generation of streetcars is going to help the problem.

Faster boarding. All door, low floor boarding on a long articulated streetcar with big doors and nobody filing past the driver. It should make the biggest difference on routes like Spadina or St. Clair where traffic doesn't get in the way, but it should still make a difference on other routes.

Increasing the capacity of each streetcar is a pretty big advantage too, from both a capacity and cost point of view.

The problem isn't the trams, it is the route. I don't think buses will help, I just think they wont cost millions to have sit in traffic, they won't get caught behind a broken down car and they won't take millions in street repairs per year.

...and they won't handle the crowds the way streetcars do. A modern LRV can carry 300 people (depending on the length) compared to ~120 on an articulated bus. Plus as we've already seen streetcars are better at attracting riders in the first place. Millions in street repairs? Are you talking about maintenance or actually building the tracks? Properly built tracks last several decades, and streetcars tend to last a lot longer than buses. I don't think the difference in costs is as big as you think. But again, you get what you pay for.

 

[RedRocket191]

^

Add the fact that the "buses can leapfrog other buses" argument doesn't work in heavy downtown traffic.

 

[rbt]

^

Add the fact that the "buses can leapfrog other buses" argument doesn't work in heavy downtown traffic.

Especially on Queen, King, Dundas, College and other single lane streets. Leap frogging during rush hour is even more difficult despite parking restrictions.