Parliament Streetcar

[Richard White]

If the streetcars have a min turning radius of ~11m, a turn-loop would fit under the junction of Bloor St E && Castle Frank Rd

You don't just need the minimum, you also need a buffer.

Regards,

 

[urbancog]

Agreed but here's a 22m radius circle:

Which would seem like too much of a buffer. So, I'm confident an adequate space is available.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

glad to see this thread active. this project should be merged with the waterfront east LRT.

 

[hawc]

Zombie Thread Rises From The Dead!

 

[Admiral Beez]

No, not the bus loop. The deck we're talking about is the lower level of the road bridge over Rosedale Valley. It was built in 1918 with a lower deck for future streetcar or subway use.

As for platforms, what @reaperexpress is suggesting is that rather than use the existing bus loop, you could build platforms underground beneath Bloor St.

The potential platform location:

View attachment 715977

I like it, but how do we turn the streetcar around to get back down Parliament?

 

[reaperexpress]

I like it, but how do we turn the streetcar around to get back down Parliament?

You don't. You walk to the other end of the streetcar and drive from that end.

"Just" buying or retrofitting a second type of streetcar implies a significant maintenance and administrative load. This would be difficult to justify for the sake of a single route.

Bidirectional streetcars make sense for any future streetcar for any route, not just this single route. By converting to bidirectional vehicles we can free up a lot of land occupied by loops, and there can be many more turnback or single-track options when all it takes is a crossover. More turnback or switching options means less impact from service disruptions.

 

[kaptrice]

By coincidence, I and some others had been discussing a Parliament streetcar earlier.
I started organising some thoughts here

Thinking about a Parliament Streetcar (draft)

Recently the topic of the 65 Parliament bus route and the old Parliament streetcar came up in conversation. Ever since the route was convert...

kaptrice.blogspot.com

but never finished. In my opinion a minimal-infrastructure, weak-priority (think RapidTO Bathurst) type of line could be viable just because there's so little track and overhead to add.
Parliament is clearly the eastern equivalent to Spadina in terms of waterfront redevelopment. It also usefully can ferry Port Lands residents to rapid transit at Corktown.

The 65 has already had its ridership take off after the extension to George Brown on the waterfront. It will undoubtedly grow as the east waterfront fills in and would grow if Parliament wasn't hyperlocal in its stops.

 

[McGillicuddy]

Bidirectional streetcars make sense for any future streetcar for any route, not just this single route. By converting to bidirectional vehicles we can free up a lot of land occupied by loops, and there can be many more turnback or single-track options when all it takes is a crossover. More turnback or switching options means less impact from service disruptions.

It also means rebuilding every existing streetcar loop. I take your point that this might allow for loop infrastructure to be placed in more convenient locations and more cheaply constructed in future, but I still think you're setting up one awful chicken-and-egg problem here, and inevitably the city will end up stuck with the advantages of neither for a prolonged period. (Two fleets with independent training and maintenance requirements that can't be run on each other's lines.)

 

[lastcommodore]

It also means rebuilding every existing streetcar loop. I take your point that this might allow for loop infrastructure to be placed in more convenient locations and more cheaply constructed in future, but I still think you're setting up one awful chicken-and-egg problem here, and inevitably the city will end up stuck with the advantages of neither for a prolonged period. (Two fleets with independent training and maintenance requirements that can't be run on each other's lines.)

I dont see why you cant just drive a bidirectional tram thru a loop

 

[drum118]

glad to see this thread active. this project should be merged with the waterfront east LRT.

Why when they have no connection and outside of WT mandate??

To connect Parliament to QQE is not on TTC radar period. There is no .funding in place for an EA let alone build it beyond 2050 timeframe. It is not in the city master plan nor is the city willing to put things in the 2050-75 plan at this time.

I dont see why you cant just drive a bidirectional tram thru a loop

Loops eats up very expensive land and squeal while going the looping regardless if its duel or single end tram. Loops are a thing of the past but you can find systems doing both these days..

Having a duel end for Castile Frank means you don't need to worry the roof of the station nor building a loop they when it can have a platform on the south side of the station or in the middle of Bloor.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You don't. You walk to the other end of the streetcar and drive from that end. Bidirectional streetcars make sense for any future streetcar for any route,

That’s a whole system reset, and given that each successive TTC streetcar series operates for about forty or more years (for example, the CLRV ran from 1979 to 2019), any bi-directional streetcar service to Castlefrank wouldn’t have a vehicle until the 2060s.

Instead, why not reinstate the original Parliament St. loop and install a pedestrian tunnel under Bloor to the station?

Or heck, a turntable, like at the Uptown Station in Dallas, Tx, but suitably lengthened to fit the Flexis.

 

[Sauga89]

That’s a whole system reset, and given that each successive TTC streetcar series operates for about forty or more years (for example, the CLRV ran from 1979 to 2019), any bi-directional streetcar service to Castlefrank wouldn’t have a vehicle until the 2060s.

Instead, why not reinstate the original Parliament St. loop and install a pedestrian tunnel under Bloor to the station?

Or heck, a turntable, like at the Uptown Station in Dallas, Tx, but suitably lengthened to fit the Flexis.

Also, as @urbancog noted yesterday, even with unidirectional streetcars, there's a lot of room for an underground loop. It just means more excavation.

Agreed but here's a 22m radius circle:
View attachment 716009
Which would seem like too much of a buffer. So, I'm confident an adequate space is available.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Could a Flexity turn on the original loop?

 

[T3G]

Loops eats up very expensive land and squeal while going the looping regardless if its duel or single end tram. Loops are a thing of the past

Except that we already have the land on which loops sit, therefore the benefits of not having to purchase very expensive land do not exist here.

 

[DSCToronto]

glad to see this thread active. this project should be merged with the waterfront east LRT.

Probably more realistic to merge it with the Transit Fantasy one https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/transit-fantasy-maps.3005/page-436#post-2347232