News   Dec 13, 2019
 1K     16 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 1.6K     3 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 762     1 

TTC: Streetcar Network

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
787
The difference between light rail and heavy rail and horse-drawn carriages is not purely semantic, especially in the context of a discussion the capacity of the TTC system to handle the ridership growth.
There was a Yonge Streetcar. I wonder why it got upgraded to a Subway.....
 

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
148
Reaction score
203
The big change between subway and streetcar on Yonge was grade separation, and stop spacing. Saying a mixed-traffic streetcar (which is effectively an upgraded bus) is the same as light rail running as part of a rapid transit system in a tunnel is disingenuous. Even in the case of the crosstown surface section, or finch, the stop spacing is greater than it is for the streetcars. If we'd replaced a tunnelled streetcar with a heavy rail subway, then you'd have a point.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,246
Reaction score
1,716
Personally I've got half a mind to propose making the CEO of Metrolinx an elected position with some sort of taxation authority.
I don't disagree but division of revenue can run into issues. If Metrolinx gets someone with big plans combined with a spend-thrift premier (hiring freeze, capital freeze, etc.) would MTO demand payment for use of land allocated to them (such as the Highway 407 corridor) in order to float their own budget?
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
4,463
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
There was a Yonge Streetcar. I wonder why it got upgraded to a Subway.....
Before the 1940's, the "subway" plans were for an "underground streetcar" up Bay Street shifting over to under Yonge Street.

The first "subway" in North America was in Boston, in 1897, using streetcars. Today, that "subway" still exists and was and is being extended, but now they call them light rail vehicles.

See link.


 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
787
The big change between subway and streetcar on Yonge was grade separation, and stop spacing. Saying a mixed-traffic streetcar (which is effectively an upgraded bus) is the same as light rail running as part of a rapid transit system in a tunnel is disingenuous. Even in the case of the crosstown surface section, or finch, the stop spacing is greater than it is for the streetcars. If we'd replaced a tunnelled streetcar with a heavy rail subway, then you'd have a point.
It is all about the amount of people the line moves. Buses move less than streetcars. Streetcars move less than LRT. LRT moves less than Subways.

Just like having your neighbourhood served by a subway is not worth it, having a neighbourhood not served by a subway is a bad thing. Toronto needs more mass transit. As soon as 1 project completes one part, then, a new project does that part. For example, once one subway is tunneled, a new subway is tunneled, all while that first one has their stations built.
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
183
I don't disagree but division of revenue can run into issues. If Metrolinx gets someone with big plans combined with a spend-thrift premier (hiring freeze, capital freeze, etc.) would MTO demand payment for use of land allocated to them (such as the Highway 407 corridor) in order to float their own budget?
Probably worse than that. Bearing in mind the actual legislative structure, there would be no way to create an elected Metrolinx that a Premier couldn't just be rid of the moment it became inconvenient.
 

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
334
Location
Mississauga
The big change between subway and streetcar on Yonge was grade separation, and stop spacing. Saying a mixed-traffic streetcar (which is effectively an upgraded bus) is the same as light rail running as part of a rapid transit system in a tunnel is disingenuous. Even in the case of the crosstown surface section, or finch, the stop spacing is greater than it is for the streetcars. If we'd replaced a tunnelled streetcar with a heavy rail subway, then you'd have a point.
Grade-separating light rail like Eglinton-Crosstown could have allowed longer trains and more frequently without worry of disrupting on-street traffic, including pedestrian traffic. But since Eglinton-Crosstown will also have on-street sections, i.e. it is not full subway line, it will not be able to take advantage of that grade separation to increase capacity. They will still have to limit the size and frequency of the trains the same as an on-street light rail line, and therefore the capacity will still be the same as other modern light rail.

And of course, LRVs are much narrower compared to the subway trains. Even if the light rail trains are the same length, the capacity is still significantly lower.

The tunnel might be able to allow the Eglinton trains to operate faster than other light rail, so fewer trains need provide the same headway, so it will save money on operating costs. But the capacity of the line will always be constrained by the on-street sections. To use longer, wider, more frequent trains like a subway line, it would mean full grade-separation.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
4,463
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Grade-separating light rail like Eglinton-Crosstown could have allowed longer trains and more frequently without worry of disrupting on-street traffic, including pedestrian traffic. But since Eglinton-Crosstown will also have on-street sections, i.e. it is not full subway line, it will not be able to take advantage of that grade separation to increase capacity. They will still have to limit the size and frequency of the trains the same as an on-street light rail line, and therefore the capacity will still be the same as other modern light rail.

And of course, LRVs are much narrower compared to the subway trains. Even if the light rail trains are the same length, the capacity is still significantly lower.

The tunnel might be able to allow the Eglinton trains to operate faster than other light rail, so fewer trains need provide the same headway, so it will save money on operating costs. But the capacity of the line will always be constrained by the on-street sections. To use longer, wider, more frequent trains like a subway line, it would mean full grade-separation.
The Montréal Metro cars [2.51 m (8 ft 2 7⁄8 in)] are narrower than Toronto's streetcars [2.54 m (8 ft 4 in)], yet are considered a "subway". The Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be wider [2.65 m (8 ft 8 in)]than both the Toronto streetcars and Montréal Metro cars.
 
Last edited:

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,836
Reaction score
2,829
Grade-separating light rail like Eglinton-Crosstown could have allowed longer trains and more frequently without worry of disrupting on-street traffic, including pedestrian traffic. But since Eglinton-Crosstown will also have on-street sections, i.e. it is not full subway line, it will not be able to take advantage of that grade separation to increase capacity. They will still have to limit the size and frequency of the trains the same as an on-street light rail line, and therefore the capacity will still be the same as other modern light rail.
Except that the service is going to operate as two branches - one branch operating the full length of the service, and a second running only in the grade separated service between Mount Dennis and Laird. The capacity of the underground section will be quite a bit higher - by necessity - than the section built at-grade.

Dan
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
4,463
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Except that the service is going to operate as two branches - one branch operating the full length of the service, and a second running only in the grade separated service between Mount Dennis and Laird. The capacity of the underground section will be quite a bit higher - by necessity - than the section built at-grade.

Dan
Source?
 

torontocolin

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
127
Reaction score
136
It is all about the amount of people the line moves. Buses move less than streetcars. Streetcars move less than LRT. LRT moves less than Subways.

Just like having your neighbourhood served by a subway is not worth it, having a neighbourhood not served by a subway is a bad thing. Toronto needs more mass transit. As soon as 1 project completes one part, then, a new project does that part. For example, once one subway is tunneled, a new subway is tunneled, all while that first one has their stations built.
I don't think I quite understand your point. We have two LRT lines currently under construction, both of which will move significantly more people than the buses they replace. We have two subway projects in planning, and maybe you (like me) don't believe they will actually be shovel-ready by the promised dates, but I don't think you can put that on the city right now. On top of those, work on GO RER is slowly progressing, along with ATC upgrades to line 1, and we're getting close to being ready to proceed with building a new connection for the streetcar system through the Exhibition. There are lots of problems with the way the city and province prioritizes, funds, and advances projects, but if you just want to strictly be a slave to "there must always be a new line under construction" we've had active work on a new rail line serving Toronto at all times since 2010, when the GTS/UPX project began.

These capital projects are important. The DRL and a replacement for the SRT are critical infrastructure for this city, and ensuring they advance is important work. But those projects are mostly advancing, the arguments at this point are mostly about scope and scale and when rather than if. What is not advancing is buying enough streetcars to actually serve the demand, building enough garages and buying enough buses, and then funding the operating costs of putting those vehicles on the road.
 

pstogios

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
733
I got a suggestion... raise property taxes....
I live in Sudbury, and compared to us, you pay a lower rate. If you raised taxes, then you could afford it.

But, I know, I know, cutting services is more palatable than raising taxes.
I don’t know how much this would raise, but the city of Toronto should levy an escalated property tax rate on properties over a certain threshold of square footage or value. The mega-rich can afford to contribute more to fix the quagmire the city’s finances are still in.
 

amnesiajune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
965
I dunno, all of those meetings that they had during the EA process many years ago? TTC's own planning staff?
They haven't confirmed anything yet, beyond the existence of the switches that'll let them run more service in the underground section.

In any case, there's no reason why they can't run high frequencies in the surface sections. The LRVs are going to be following regular traffic signals, just like the streetcars on St Clair and Spadina.
 

Top