Despite what Ford says The Streetcar in Toronto is here to stay.

[Justin10000]

And will have POP, and all door boarding with the new streetcars.

 

[reaperexpress]

512 St Clair certainly works better than downtown streetcars (except Spadina and maybe Bathurst).

Downtown streetcars are slow because they have no ROW and all traffic there is slow. In addition, they are not frequent enough, and are managed by trip completion (for the convenience of operators, so they end their shift at the same location every day), rather than by headways which would be much more convenient for riders.

I didn't mean that the 512 is as slow as the downtown streetcars, I was just pointing out that speed is always a factor, no matter the type of route. Besides 12 to 16km/h average is nothing to brag about

 

[W. K. Lis]

St. Clair has a signal priority system installed and enabled.

Rode it today (2010/11/19) and the left turn vehicles (mostly single-occupant as well) keep getting priority ahead of transit. Was made to wait at red lights, no delayed green either.

 

[LNahid2000]

Rode it today (2010/11/19) and the left turn vehicles (mostly single-occupant as well) keep getting priority ahead of transit. Was made to wait at red lights, no delayed green either.

This has been my experience as well.

 

[Rainforest]

I didn't mean that the 512 is as slow as the downtown streetcars, I was just pointing out that speed is always a factor, no matter the type of route. Besides 12 to 16km/h average is nothing to brag about

Sure it always nice to have a faster service; but the absolute reduction in travel time tends to be smaller for shorter routes. The 512 is only 7 km long, and most of people do not ride it end to end. A lot of riders coming from the west transfer to subway at St Clair West station that is 5 km from the Gunns loop.

A 5-km trip takes 20 min at 15 kph, or 15 min at 20 kph. The 5-min difference is hardly a deal-breaker. Getting 512 to run faster than at 20 kph will be a big challenge even with signal priority and less frequent stops, just because so many side streets cross St Clair. The benefit of removing stops is minor, hence it is better to keep all existing stops for the convenience of locals.

If the route was 15 km or 30 km long, then of course the same percentage gain in speed would result in a much greater reduction in travel time.

 

[Towered]

One of the reasons that BRT was seen as a viable option in the Eglinton West/Etobicoke corridor was because the original plan was to build a subway from Eg West all the way to the airport, although final alignments at the extreme west end were never really finalized. The thought was that the subway would be phased and that BRT was a relatively cheap interim way of upgrading transit until a full subway was completed. On the timeline then thought to be realistic for the subway phasing, a BRT would have served the forecast ridership in the Richview corridor just fine during the interim pre-subway period. Truth be told, I don't think the forecast ridership numbers on Eglinton ever really did warrant a full subway, even back in the early 1990's.

Nevertheless, I don't think that LRT was really on anyone's radar in those days, simply because there was a "rut" of thinking that it was subways or buses, with nothing in between. Of course, that might have been ok then when funding for subways and transit operating budgets was much more stable and certain. Since then, both capital and operating funding has become much less stable and more subject to political whim. We have seen that the political appetite for subway spending cools very quickly once the bills actually start rolling in.

If Eglinton is now to be built with LRT as the medium to long-term mode for the central underground portion of the corridor, then the need to downgrade to a BRT through the less-used western end of the corridor becomes less of an issue given that LRT capacities and operating costs are so flexible. If this line is to be a link to the airport as planned, then the perception of having to transfer off of an LRT vehicle to a similarly-sized bus, reserved lanes or not, starts to become more important. If an LRT is regarded by many as a "second class" subway, then forcing a transfer to a bus certainly would be regarded the same way, if not moreso.

The local councillor for the Richview corridor has gone on record as opposing the surface LRT option (she wants a subway) in part because the homeowners who back onto the currently-empty part of the corridor on the north side of Eglinton want no reduction in that green space which they regard as a buffer between them and the busy, noisy road. Even if you disagree with their point of view, putting a separate bus road, or an LRT ROW for that matter, in that part of the corridor would not go over well, you can be sure. It also requires some grade separation at the cross streets to avoid creating too-closely-spaced intersections, which then starts to drive up the costs (both capital and maintenance) regardless of whether it's buses or light rail using the ROW. Median running is certainly more conventional and offers some advantages for traffic signal operation/priority. Side-of-the-road, or off-the-road running is feasible as well, but I'm not sure that the advantages are quite as significant as they may first appear.

BRT, LRT and subways all have their place and I think it is unrealistic to expect that we will get everyone to agree on which is best where. These issues are seldom that cut-and-dried. My fear is that in the bickering back and forth about whether Eglinton (or any other line) should be BRT, LRT, subway or gondolas (etc), we will end up with nothing. It's certainly an interesting debate, but I hope that we can all at least agree that "do nothing" is not a viable option for Toronto after the last 20-30 yrs of inaction.

Sorry for going on so long and thanks for reading through it all!

The Richview corridor should be filled in with dense, mixed use buildings.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Richview corridor should be filled in with dense, mixed use buildings.

A heavy rail subway would most probably be open trench, meaning a lose of green space.

A light rail right-of-way would mean the loss of the road shoulders and likely a rain runoff gully beside the road.

While they are forecasting electricity increases of 45% in the coming years, the price forecasts for oil and their by-products (IE. gasoline, asphalt, diesel, etc.) are to increase 500%. Only the rich and millionaires (such as Rob Ford) would be able to afford such a luxury as gasoline to ride around in single-occupant automobiles in almost empty streets.

 

[Darwinkgo]

500% now that is just rediculous. Demand fell significantly when oil was in the mid $100s and was down to the mid $30 range within a year. That for some reason anyone would think oil could be supported at close to $500 a barrel - what are you smoking? Because I definetly want some.

 

[rbt]

500% now that is just rediculous. Demand fell significantly when oil was in the mid $100s and was down to the mid $30 range within a year. That for some reason anyone would think oil could be supported at close to $500 a barrel - what are you smoking? Because I definetly want some.

The largest increase predictions of 500% came about when oil was at its lowest. I think $150 to $200 per barrel within 10 years is very likely.

 

[drum118]

Here is one for Ford and the Car Folks

Trams, trolleybuses and taxis

by Tom Washington at 19/11/2010 13:10
Soviet-era trams in Moscow have trundled off to the sidings for the last time – and trolleybuses are set to join them.
But if public transport changes could force more commuters into less space, at least there’s good news for taxi fans.

Trolley buses under fire
Clean, economic and quiet, trolleybuses should be a boon for urban transport. But a mayoral edict from Sergei Sobyanin could see them stripped from city streets.
The large, sometimes unwieldy vehicles have been identified as a potential roadblock – largely because they can’t navigate around obstructions – and are facing cuts in numbers as part of the city’s new jam-busting plans.
But not everyone agrees, “Removing trolleybuses from the city centre is wrong,” outraged architectural historian Alexei Klimenko told Moskovsky Komsomolets. “To eliminate traffic jams you must first remove obstacles, such as incorrectly parked cars.”
So far nobody has announced how they will be replaced.

Taxis in the middle of the road
The good news is that Moscow taxis are not so expensive, American internet service The Price of Travel found. With Zurich ($18.18-$24.24, 560-750 roubles, per 3 km) at the top of the price charts and New Delhi ($0.90-$1.58 per 3 km) at the bottom, Moscow came out somewhere in the middle with $3.74-$5.52 (115-170 roubles) per 3 km.
However, the Moscow rates would seem to be closer to the fares negotiated by unofficial “gypsy cabs” than official taxi services.
Many Muscovites shun official vehicles, claiming they are too expensive compared with the long-established informal system of flagging a passing driver and cutting a deal if you’re going in the same direction.

End of the line for Soviet trams
The last Soviet built tram has made its last trip, it will spend the rest of its days in a museum.
But the rattling carriages’ retirement does not mean an end to being railroaded around the city – more up-to-date models are already on track to replace them, MK reported.

http://themoscownews.com/local/20101119/188216226.html?referfrommn

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in 1991, twenty years ago. Soviet industry was known to have problems due to outdated infrastructure, lack of investment, corruption and bad decision-making by the authorities. Amazing that those trams and trolley-buses lasted that long.

Czechoslovak-made Tatra trams on the other hand were generally licensed and modeled on the PCC (North American) streetcars and was one of the world's leading producers of trams/streetcars. Tatra is now ČKD after being privatized and split into different companies, some in competition with other tram and streetcar manufactures.

 

[cacruden]

Sure it always nice to have a faster service; but the absolute reduction in travel time tends to be smaller for shorter routes. The 512 is only 7 km long, and most of people do not ride it end to end. A lot of riders coming from the west transfer to subway at St Clair West station that is 5 km from the Gunns loop.

A 5-km trip takes 20 min at 15 kph, or 15 min at 20 kph. The 5-min difference is hardly a deal-breaker. Getting 512 to run faster than at 20 kph will be a big challenge even with signal priority and less frequent stops, just because so many side streets cross St Clair. The benefit of removing stops is minor, hence it is better to keep all existing stops for the convenience of locals.

If the route was 15 km or 30 km long, then of course the same percentage gain in speed would result in a much greater reduction in travel time.

Depends on goal of the line, if it is meant to be used for short distance transit, no problem, but there will be little to no increase in ridership. If I am a driver, you won't get me out of my car if I have to chug along with traffic.

Eginton should be express, with connections to super-express(GO), and local transit. There should be a bigger long term goal to the system. Without that you are just throwing money at it for existing ridership.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Sure it always nice to have a faster service; but the absolute reduction in travel time tends to be smaller for shorter routes. The 512 is only 7 km long, and most of people do not ride it end to end. A lot of riders coming from the west transfer to subway at St Clair West station that is 5 km from the Gunns loop.

A 5-km trip takes 20 min at 15 kph, or 15 min at 20 kph. The 5-min difference is hardly a deal-breaker. Getting 512 to run faster than at 20 kph will be a big challenge even with signal priority and less frequent stops, just because so many side streets cross St Clair. The benefit of removing stops is minor, hence it is better to keep all existing stops for the convenience of locals.

If the route was 15 km or 30 km long, then of course the same percentage gain in speed would result in a much greater reduction in travel time.

Would be better if the 512 St. Clair was extended at least to Jane Street or Scarlett Road. Unfortunately, they are now repaving St. Clair Avenue West between Runnymede and Gunns Road, which means no streetcar extension in the short future. Thought they were going to widen the eastbound St. Clair between those roads as well, but maybe next year or the following year.

 

[Dan416]

I wasn't sure where to post this so I figured here is a good enough home.

On the radio (CBC Radio 1) when I was driving home they were talking about Ford and Transit City and they said that Karen Stintz, the new TTC commissioner has said we have to reexamine Transit City.

They also threw around some figures that the TTC had come up with: for the SRT replacement with subway, they said it'd cost $600 million more than conversion to LRT.

For Sheppard they said it would cost $3 billion more to replace the SELRT with subway. At first I thought that was crazy. Then I thought about it, and remembered that Ford had proposed continuing the Sheppard Subway west to Downsview as well as east to STC. So I suppose that could cost $3 billion altogether. Although it still sounds like a lot, especially if they mean over and above the cost of the SELRT (although I'm not sure how much the SRT to LRT conversion or the SELRT are costed at currently).

 

[nfitz]

So I suppose that could cost $3 billion altogether. Although it still sounds like a lot, especially if they mean over and above the cost of the SELRT

Throwing around some rough numbers. Completing Sheppard from Downsview to STC would need about 13 km of subway, all in tunnel. Even at $250-million/km this would cost $3.3 billion. At $300-million per km this would be $3.9 billion; roughly that's about $3 billion more.

Also Phase 1 of the SELRT is 13 km; but about 8 km of this is east of where the Sheppard Subway would drop south to STC. So it's only 5 km of the SELRT that would be replaced by subway ... there's lot's of ways to get to $3 billion.

As much as 13 km of subway on Sheppard would be useful to a few people, I'd much prefer they continue instead with the 12 km of subway on Eglinton instead.