[CityRider]

Is it an exclusively Toronto thing that we don't want to solve the problems, instead we would rather deceive ourselves by saying "there are some cities that have similar problems, so it is not a big deal"?

Btw, the Melbourne tram system is still way faster and reliable than the TTC streetcar system; in fact, the TTC streetcar system is THE slowest, not one of the slowest, among almost all modern tram systems in the world.

I realize two people have said this now, so assuming it's not hyperbole, is there an evidence-based comparison available somewhere? Just curious. I've taken the Edinburgh and Dublin trams and they both move at a snail's pace. The one I took in Alicante, Spain was decent though.

 

[allabootmatt]

The Sydney Light Rail runs at a Toronto or even sub-Toronto pace for its downtown stretch along George St, which is in theory an exclusive ROW (though thronged with pedestrians -- think Yonge and Dundas). Much faster to take a bus on one of the parallel streets. It’s better outside the CBD but still pretty slow.

None of this is to excuse the TTC situation, which is appalling. Just mean to say that these problems aren't unique.

 

[nfitz]

I realize two people have said this now, so assuming it's not hyperbole, is there an evidence-based comparison available somewhere? Just curious. I've taken the Edinburgh and Dublin trams and they both move at a snail's pace. The one I took in Alicante, Spain was decent though.

The comparison tables and references were in the last few weeks in one of the Streetcar threads. I think the source was from one of the Australian systems who were trying to evaluate if there system was particularly slow ... or not.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is it an exclusively Toronto thing that we don't want to solve the problems, instead we would rather deceive ourselves by saying "there are some cities that have similar problems, so it is not a big deal"

I was more looking for a laugh with the horse tram. When we see the dismal performance of the TTC we can all use a chuckle.

 

[ThenWhat]

Is it an exclusively Toronto thing that we don't want to solve the problems, instead we would rather deceive ourselves by saying "there are some cities that have similar problems, so it is not a big deal"?

An interesting discussion, but a bigger question is: What case is there for building new street-level rail transit in Toronto, instead of just using buses? Is it just capacity numbers? And are those projected demand numbers real?
Bus infrastructure is easier and cheaper to set up and operate, and offers flexibility both short term (rerouting in emergencies) and long term (route changes).
Those are reasonable question, even before we consider the terrible record of building and rebuilding street car routes in this city (St Clair, Spadina, Eglinton).

 

[MisterF]

I realize two people have said this now, so assuming it's not hyperbole, is there an evidence-based comparison available somewhere? Just curious. I've taken the Edinburgh and Dublin trams and they both move at a snail's pace. The one I took in Alicante, Spain was decent though.

Study claims Toronto's TTC streetcars are the slowest in the world​

The study from urban accessibility expert Dr. Jan Scheurer set out to determine whether Melbourne, Australia's trams are the most slugging worldwide, and instead pinned that unfortunate distinction on Toronto's TTC streetcar network.

The research notes that "tram speeds in city centres are tangibly lower than on average across the network, with the exception of Toronto, where CBD-typical speeds seem to extend across the entire city."

 

[zang]

An interesting discussion, but a bigger question is: What case is there for building new street-level rail transit in Toronto, instead of just using buses? Is it just capacity numbers? And are those projected demand numbers real?

They were real enough 40 years go when the Eglinton Subway was being planned. Per usual however, priorities always give way for drivers and tax breaks.

Bus infrastructure is easier and cheaper to set up and operate, and offers flexibility both short term (rerouting in

Cheaper to set up, but definitely not cheaper to operate. More drivers are needed for the same amount of passengers and you’ve got higher regular maintenance costs and shorter vehicle life.

emergencies) and long term (route changes).
Those are reasonable question, even before we consider the terrible record of building and rebuilding street car routes in this city (St Clair, Spadina, Eglinton).

The problem with the TTC has always been the lack of enough funding to put towards maintenance. FFS, we have several subway stations that currently look downright post apocalyptic. We still use outdated switches. We make cost concessions upon the slightest pressure. We have kicked the accessibility goals down the road more times than I can count.

The TTC has long relied almost entirely on the fare box for funding, unlike transit agencies in almost all major cities, who are heavily subsidized. Here, we’ve had decades of being thrown capital bones from higher ups, with the expectation that the TTC entirely foot the cost of running it.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

They were real enough 40 years go when the Eglinton Subway was being planned. Per usual however, priorities always give way for drivers and tax breaks.




Cheaper to set up, but definitely not cheaper to operate. More drivers are needed for the same amount of passengers and you’ve got higher regular maintenance costs and shorter vehicle life.


The problem with the TTC has always been the lack of enough funding to put towards maintenance. FFS, we have several subway stations that currently look downright post apocalyptic. We still use outdated switches. We make cost concessions upon the slightest pressure. We have kicked the accessibility goals down the road more times than I can count.

The TTC has long relied almost entirely on the fare box for funding, unlike transit agencies in almost all major cities, who are heavily subsidized. Here, we’ve had decades of being thrown capital bones from higher ups, with the expectation that the TTC entirely foot the cost of running it.

The TTC was making money with the two zone fare system it had until the subway edged past the old borders of the City of Toronto into North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough, but were kept in fare zone 1. The city had to subsidize when the old zone system of zone 1 and zone 2 were combined after lobbying by the suburban politicians. Then the province (under PC Premier Bill Davis) agreed to help with provincial funding of operations. That provincial subsidy ended with PC Premier Mike Harris.

 

[ThenWhat]

[… regarding buses …]

Cheaper to set up, but definitely not cheaper to operate. More drivers are needed for the same amount of passengers and you’ve got higher regular maintenance costs and shorter vehicle life.

Is that really true? Including the necessary maintenance and rebuilding of the rails and the overhead cables?

The problem with the TTC has always been the lack of enough funding to put towards maintenance. FFS, we have several subway stations that currently look downright post apocalyptic. We still use outdated switches. We make cost concessions upon the slightest pressure. We have kicked the accessibility goals down the road more times than I can count.

The lack of funding is real enough and has been for a long time. So is the political football around announcing new investments. So given the resources TTC has and expects to have, is there really a good case for building new street level rails, and not for example dedicated bus lanes?

 

[T3G]

Is that really true? Including the necessary maintenance and rebuilding of the rails and the overhead cables?

The TTC has currently budgeted a lifespan of 12 years for their buses (down from the historical 18), and tracks only need to be rebuilt every 20-25 years, provided that they were built correctly in the first place. Couple that with the increased personnel requirements for smaller buses, and the fact that LRVs can be coupled, creating higher capacity under the control of a single driver, and building bus lanes starts to look penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[TwoWheelPoli]

well today is the purported start of the FRD.... hopefully this is the beginning of the end of this dreaded wait...

Surprised nothing official has been announced about this full revenue demonstration. If indeed that's what's happening, Metrolinx better announce this ASAP!

The sooner this can be done - and the LRT can open - the sooner the City can start filling in those bike lane gaps from Keele to Mount Pleasant. However, the Bathurst to Allen stretch and a short stretch east of Caledonia are expected to be deferred due to traffic studies for the former and flood prevention work co-ordination for the latter.

 

[TOtramz]

Surprised nothing official has been announced about this full revenue demonstration. If indeed that's what's happening, Metrolinx better announce this ASAP!

The sooner this can be done - and the LRT can open - the sooner the City can start filling in those bike lane gaps from Keele to Mount Pleasant. However, the Bathurst to Allen stretch and a short stretch east of Caledonia are expected to be deferred due to traffic studies for the former and flood prevention work co-ordination for the latter.

I highly doubt they will officially announce the start of revenue service demonstration. They will however toute their horns and bring out the champaign once it "goes to plan" and they declare substantial completion

Do you really think MX will declare the start of RSD and then a day later have to stop testing because of a minor issue? That would look so bad

 

[zang]

[… regarding buses …]

Is that really true? Including the necessary maintenance and rebuilding of the rails and the overhead cables?

Yes.

Energy-wise it's quite a bit cheaper. https://bathtrams.uk/the-most-energy-efficient-mode-of-public-transport/. Trams don't require charging infrastructure and battery replacement or regular refuelling and oil changes in the case of diesel.

Bus advocates love to point out that infrastructure costs are lower, but in reality it's a hidden cost as it gets paid for in regular road maintenance. The problem with that is buses put a much bigger strain/wear on the roads themselves. Especially when fully electric normal-length buses can weigh in the area of 20,000kg. If you have a route busy enough to contemplate running a tram, then you're going to be running many more buses on a regular basis, likely articulated buses as well (even heavier). Without things like concrete pads, you will see road indentations and potholes formed around bus stops and traffic lights, and these routes will end up requiring more frequent paving, etc. It just goes on the regular infrastructure line of the city budget instead of the public transit line. Just because the cost isn't inherently visible doesn't mean there isn't one.

Tires alone cost the TTC over $5.5m per year.

If you're going all-electric for buses, then you'll also need to purchase extra vehicles to cope with the route, as buses will need to be cycled out to charge. Though the TTC uses higher-speed pantograph charging on at least some of their electric buses so it's not taking hours upon hours (likely in the area of 20 minutes), the faster you charge a Lithium Ion battery, the faster you shorten its life. The cold winters and hot summers of Toronto will undoubtedly have a negative effect on lifespan. While the batteries are expected to average about 10-15 years (about the expected lifespan of the vehicle), you'll see at least some needing costly replacements before then.

BRTs are maybe an option, but I think that's harder to justify in a downtown core. And if you're doing a separated route anyway, why not put forth the extra capital for tram in order to lower your future maintenance cost?

We're doing all of this tram and subway maintenance at once right now, precisely because we have the first mayor in over a decade who actually wants to prioritize transit and fix the problems we've been ignoring for so long. It doesn't help that it's coming at the same time that Metrolinx is digging up the core for the Ontario Line.

The lack of funding is real enough and has been for a long time. So is the political football around announcing new investments. So given the resources TTC has and expects to have, is there really a good case for building new street level rails, and not for example dedicated bus lanes?

Yes. Overall lower costs.

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
–Men At Arms, Terry Pratchett

 

[jmi22]

The TTC has currently budgeted a lifespan of 12 years for their buses (down from the historical 18), and tracks only need to be rebuilt every 20-25 years, provided that they were built correctly in the first place. Couple that with the increased personnel requirements for smaller buses, and the fact that LRVs can be coupled, creating higher capacity under the control of a single driver, and building bus lanes starts to look penny wise, pound foolish.

The great thing about bus lanes, is you don't have to "build" anything, you paint a lane red and maybe throw down a jersey barrier. They are quite literally a universally adopted method of transportation planning in the rest of the world, there is nothing special in the hallowed roadbeds of Toronto that make the business case for buying a can of paint not work here.

 

[T3G]

The great thing about bus lanes, is you don't have to "build" anything, you paint a lane red and maybe throw down a jersey barrier. They are quite literally a universally adopted method of transportation planning in the rest of the world, there is nothing special in the hallowed roadbeds of Toronto that make the business case for buying a can of paint not work here.

Boiling down the building of a BRT in place of a rail rapid transit line by reducing it to buying a can of paint doesn't tell the whole story. Yes, your start up costs will be much lower, but you need more vehicles, and more drivers to operate those vehicles, to provide the same level of capacity that those LRTs would (especially if they are coupled), and you need to replace those buses more often than an LRV, which has a lifespan of 30-40 years without a rebuild, and 50-60 years if it receives a sufficiently comprehensive rebuild.

I never said that BRTs aren't built elsewhere, or, indeed, that they couldn't work in the GTA. I am saying that BRTs are not a replacement for LRTs, and never will be. There is no logical journey from BRT to subway that skips the LRT. LRTs are an important middle ground and can carry lots more people, in contexts where subways would be considered overbuilding for the environment, such as in the suburbs.