BYD failing on Vendor Performance gave me a chuckle as they were they ones who had that elaborate PR-heavy presentation to the TTC Board that kicked off all this in the first place. It sounds like they are all marketing flash with no actual customer service experience or capabilities.Also on the agenda a report on how the new Electric Buses are performing.
Report here: http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Com...ogram_Preliminary_Results_of_TTCs_Head_to.pdf
From said report:
View attachment 311377
View attachment 311378
TTC Line 1: St George to St Andrew Closed April 12 through 21The TTC recently completed important infrastructure work at St. Patrick Station over a 10-day period in March. This is work that would have normally taken months of disruption through nightly closures. Given the success of that project, the TTC will be continuing this work in April with a similar closure to capitalize on low ridership during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Line 1 will be closed from St. George Station to St. Andrew Station from April 12 to April 21 in order to complete critical, state-of-good-repair work. Crews will continue with tunnel repairs, asbestos abatement, and infrastructure upgrades.
There will be no subway service between these stations during this period; however, shuttle buses will operate frequently. Regular subway service will resume at approximately 6 a.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2021. More details on the closure are available here.
Interesting that in London, BYD have supplied only the batteries for electric buses by proven bus manufacturer Alexander-Dennis. The buses are held in quite high regard!BYD failing on Vendor Performance gave me a chuckle as they were they ones who had that elaborate PR-heavy presentation to the TTC Board that kicked off all this in the first place. It sounds like they are all marketing flash with no actual customer service experience or capabilities.
Pretty sure the video suggested that having multiple models was ok, not that it was *desirable*, the ideas for some of the routes are wacky, though part of the benefit is having redundant tracks in a few places.I have an appreciation for Reece.
His enthusiasm for transit and interest in and knowledge of it is broad.
That said, I can't get behind a number of things in this video.
Let me start w/the positive, there is certainly a case to be made for double-ended cars, which to have any utility would need to have doors on both sides. That said, the additional doors would nix a lot of seats which would make many people unhappy; and I'm less persuaded by the argument for longer vehicles which would partially offset this.
I'm certainly happy to endorse better switches.
Expansion of the network is fine in general (his suggestion of Queen West to Park Lawn is already in the plans); Waterfront East and West extensions make eminent sense as well.
Some of the other ideas are, um, a tad quirky.
The notion of Island Platforms on Spadina would require wider platforms than those on the side today; the current side platforms are often dangerously crowded as it is, and an island would have to be able to handle loading/unloading of north and southbound vehicles at the same time.
That's fine, as far as it goes, but it would require removing car lanes on Spadina (not an easy sell); and total reconstruction of the track/ROW at intersections/stops. That's a lot of effort, money and disruption for something that doesn't, to my mind deliver much tangible gain.
The notion of running a streetcar up Main street from Kingston Road or Victoria Park is peculiar.
Victoria Park from Kingston to Gerrard is one lane each way, so the streetcar track would occupy the entire road, that would preclude an exclusive ROW and there's no other lines to interconnect with at that point.
Main is likewise narrow, there is a redundancy gain, but its quite small vs the capital outlay. Neither connection would facilitate removing an existing bus route.
Dupont is a suggestion for a new route; but the service it would replace is currently very low ridership. It gets only 3,800 boardings a day; that strikes me as something well short of justifying an LRT/Streetcar.
While Cosburn is nominally 13,000+ (still low for LRT); the truth is the bulk of its ridership is generated at the extreme east and west ends of the route.
Also, there's a need to serve a seniors home that's off Cosburn on a fairly steep grade. All that and Cosburn is already one lane each way, thus precluding any exclusive ROW (and lots of single family home driveways and those of large apartment buildings further restrain that possibility.
Portions of the route also operate on narrow, single-family home side streets. This would likely not go over well w/homeowners and would require eliminating parking.
But there are also some brutal (likely too small) turning radii on the route, in several spots. The cost of alteration would be significant.
I'm also challenged by the idea that a mixed fleet with 3 or more vehicle types (of LRT) would be desirable on the legacy network.
If the TTC could buy off-the-shelf there might be some case for that, but as also streetcars made for the legacy network require customization for TTC gauge, for the tight turning radii, and for the standard of being able to push another streetcar up the Bathurst Hill; that's a lot of cost to add to small orders.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be utility in carrying an additional model at any given time.........I just think the notion of 3-4 or more is questionable.
Having redundant tracks allow for detours and short turns.Pretty sure the video suggested that having multiple models was ok, not that it was *desirable*, the ideas for some of the routes are wacky, though part of the benefit is having redundant tracks in a few places.
Seldom? Gosh, the number of times that one is sitting on a streetcar, and one hears "This streetcar is going to divert via ... because of (accident, power problem, ....)" ... perhaps less often now the CLRVs and ALRVs aren't breaking down everywhere ... but often enough.Yes, of course it does BUT one needs to look at the cost of having a flexibility that is seldom required or can be accomplished by a slightly longer existing diversionary route.