CityNews Report on ROW
From Pulse24.com tonight:
Pulled Up By the Routes
Who says you can’t fight City Hall?
One group tried and won, after three judges agreed with their efforts to stop a proposed dedicated streetcar lane against St. Clair Ave. W.
The grassroots group S.O.S. (for “Save Our St. Clair”) went to court to block Toronto’s proposed $65 million transit right of way. They were adamant the barriers, which would have blocked pedestrian traffic along the busy thoroughfare, would wreak havoc on area businesses, and prevent customers from parking near their stores.
The plan would have put the lanes right in the middle of the road, similar to the obstructions found along Spadina Ave. It would have stopped pedestrians from crossing, and trucks would no longer have been able to unload their cargo– a potential death knell for those who live and work there.
The project was supposed to start on Wednesday.
Those who opposed the construction can hardly believe their victory. “I was totally ecstatic, totally blown away,” an elated Margaret Smith exults. “We're taking on the city, so this is not a small matter.”
Area business people admit they don’t know how the idea affected those who’ve had to live with a similar project. “We don't know for sure what's done to Spadina, because a lot of the store owners are no longer there,” shrugs St. Clair store owner Carmen Romas.
She’s sure a reversal would drive her off the street – and out of business. "If we do get this dedicated right-of-way, will you come to St. Clair?” she asked shoppers. “And they said no. If I cannot get here easily enough and [can't] park, we won't be. We'll shop somewhere else.”
Still, the plan isn’t completely dead. Both the city and the T.T.C. have 15 days to appeal the decision.
Mayor David Miller admits he’s disappointed, but cautions the city hasn’t decided what its next moves will be.
“The decision I've seen is very brief and doesn't explain why,” he concludes. “So we need to find out why. It's unfortunate though because this is an important city building project and it's the kind of project that we can do affordably. We can provide much better transit service to neighbourhoods with dedicated busways and dedicated streetcar right-of-ways.”
He cautions subways are better solutions in theory – but not in reality.
“We would all love to build subways, but to build a subway the length of St. Clair would cost billions and billions of dollars. This cost in the range of $60 to $70 million and you don't quite get as good service as subway but you get extremely good and reliable service with this kind of right-of-way.”
But the right-of-way to build it has been denied.
Pulled Up By the Routes
Who says you can’t fight City Hall?
One group tried and won, after three judges agreed with their efforts to stop a proposed dedicated streetcar lane against St. Clair Ave. W.
The grassroots group S.O.S. (for “Save Our St. Clair”) went to court to block Toronto’s proposed $65 million transit right of way. They were adamant the barriers, which would have blocked pedestrian traffic along the busy thoroughfare, would wreak havoc on area businesses, and prevent customers from parking near their stores.
The plan would have put the lanes right in the middle of the road, similar to the obstructions found along Spadina Ave. It would have stopped pedestrians from crossing, and trucks would no longer have been able to unload their cargo– a potential death knell for those who live and work there.
FALSE
Sidewalk width, for the most part, would have been salvaged throughout most of the plan area. Minimal sidewalk narrowing had to occur at some locations to accomodate an extra lane for turning movements by cars (something that opposition groups pushed for, in order to keep car capacity at today's level). As for parking, the plan calls for even MORE parking spots than are along the street right now.
Pedestrian safety is increased. Instead of hopping across 6 lanes of traffic at once, you can hop across two, then stop on the streetcar lanes, then hop across the other two. Both situations constitute JAYWALKING, which is illegal, anyway. The plan included many signalized intersections, all at which pedestrians could cross safely and legally.
The project was supposed to start on Wednesday.
Those who opposed the construction can hardly believe their victory. “I was totally ecstatic, totally blown away,” an elated Margaret Smith exults. “We're taking on the city, so this is not a small matter.”
Area business people admit they don’t know how the idea affected those who’ve had to live with a similar project. “We don't know for sure what's done to Spadina, because a lot of the store owners are no longer there,” shrugs St. Clair store owner Carmen Romas.
She’s sure a reversal would drive her off the street – and out of business. "If we do get this dedicated right-of-way, will you come to St. Clair?” she asked shoppers. “And they said no. If I cannot get here easily enough and [can't] park, we won't be. We'll shop somewhere else.”
FALSE
Most people surveyed during the project were in support and were looking forward to improved transit service.
PERSONAL NOTE: now I'm never going to go to St. Clair... ever.
Still, the plan isn’t completely dead. Both the city and the T.T.C. have 15 days to appeal the decision.
Mayor David Miller admits he’s disappointed, but cautions the city hasn’t decided what its next moves will be.
“The decision I've seen is very brief and doesn't explain why,” he concludes. “So we need to find out why. It's unfortunate though because this is an important city building project and it's the kind of project that we can do affordably. We can provide much better transit service to neighbourhoods with dedicated busways and dedicated streetcar right-of-ways.”
He cautions subways are better solutions in theory – but not in reality.
“We would all love to build subways, but to build a subway the length of St. Clair would cost billions and billions of dollars. This cost in the range of $60 to $70 million and you don't quite get as good service as subway but you get extremely good and reliable service with this kind of right-of-way.”
But the right-of-way to build it has been denied.
posted by TTCtoken at 9:59 PM
39 Comments:
the St.Clair ROW will do more damage than you boycott folks.
Ms. Smith of SOS looks and sounds like the type who wouldn't be caught dead on public transit.
The decision is a sad day for Toronto.
if you ask most people around town, if they have the choice
"would'nt be caught dead on public transit"
Boo to the SOS pople. Selfish, miguided NIMBY's who do not deserve Toronto. I hope the TTC cuts you off completely.
I intend to Boycott this street for as long as I live here. Thanks for the site. Good luck on the fight.
why don't you folks press all levels of governments to expand the TTC and GO farther into the suburbs and beyond. those are the people who need a viable option to get into the city. StClair is well served by public transit transit. Transit and road improvements on StClair is needed but ROWs is not the solution.
Ms. Smith should be awarded the key to the city. This decision may save Toronto from spending close to $100 million (including the refurbishment of the CLRV streetcars) to attain an inconsequential improvement in transit service over only a 6.5 km stretch of route.
I don't think you'll find any other city that would think it's a good idea to spend millions on non-rapid rapid transit. This reminds me of the line from The Rocky Horror Picture Show about curing the disease but not the symptoms.
My advice to the ROW proponents is do your own research on the issue. People who live in far flung places - say Kitchener - may not be the most reliable sources.
Jaywalking has a specific legal definition that is not exactly the same as crossing a street without doing so at a crosswalk. The Toronto Star had a piece about it that I now cannot find (nor can I Google the legislation).
I have the distinct impression that "People who live in far flung places - say Kitchener - may not be the most reliable sources," may be referring to me. I live in Kitchener, and I help run the Transit Toronto website.
Well, I would put it to you that someone who uses ad hominem attacks isn't all that reliable themselves. Yes, I live in Kitchener, but I was born in Toronto, and I grew up on McCaul Street for the first nineteen years of my life. I continue to visit my old home town frequently.
I also have a bachelor's degree in Environmental Studies from the School of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Waterloo, and transit has always been my passion. I'd weigh my experience as seen on the Transit Toronto website before asking whether or not I'm a reliable source or not.
And, intriguingly, Kitchener-Waterloo is well on its way towards installing a transit improvement on its own. We are currently in an environmental assessment for a proposed high speed streetcar service on private right of way stretching across our two cities. This sort of improvement is something a number of cities are engaging in across North America. It's about time that Toronto bite the bullet and return private right-of-way to St. Clair Avenue (where it ran until the early 1930s).
Jaywalking IS NOT illegal in Toronto. The fact that everyone thinks it is is a sign of the influence that American society has upon us. Pedestrians are responsible for not getting in the way of vehicles at non-signallised areas and that's it. Jaywalking is a sign of a strong and active streetscape and the ROW will only make it easier and safer for people to do so.
The fact of the matter is the status quo simply hasn't worked, St. Clair is a street in decline and few people will deny that. If you take the time to chat to area residents (which I have on multiple occasions) you will discover that people who have recently moved in to the area from other parts of the city see the problems of a street that is largely populated by cheque cashing shops and convienience stores. They see the ROW as the best opportunity to revitalise the street, and I will do what I can to help they achieve their wishes.
Without streetcar improvements St. Clair can only hope to be the next Weston, Rogers Rd, or Junction, all of which fell in to decline following the loss of streetcar service.
A review:
A PROW:
- Will NOT lead to any reduction in road capacity. The plan was revised to quell the concerns of those who worried about congestion, the plan calls for the WIDENING of the street at intersections to increase road capacity.
- Will NOT lead to the loss of any parking. Part of the plan calls for any parking lost on the street to be replaced in off-street lots.
- WILL NOT prvent people from crossing the street. Not any more than the existing sidewalk curbs do, anyway.
- WILL increase the overall carrying capacity of the street, making it easier for people to get to the stores on the street.
I have followed this fight from day one, and SOS has relied upon lies, deceptions, and fearmongering to rally support. Before one accuses the supporters of lying, you should take the time to read the reports and see the facts for yourself. Don't rely on either SOS or SCRIPT to form an opinion for you. Take the time and form one yourself.
I have spent some time in Bordeaux, France. They have a beautiful new tram system that displaced lanes used by cars. They have also closed much of the city centre to cars where the tram lines are. This has really revitalized the city centre, on any given weekend it seems that everyone flocks to the city centre to enjoy shopping without having to squeeze onto sidewalks or worrying about distracted drivers while crossing the road.
My advice to J Albert is this. We are people of Toronto. We care about the city as a whole not just our own selfish neighbourhoods. How can you say something so ridiculous when the SOS raised most of it's legal fees in Woodbridge? Typical NIMBY statement I suppose as they are the ones incapable of seeing beyond the end of their street.
I'm not sure if Mr. Marc C attented the deputations on this EA at City Hall. There were certainly 'people of Toronto' who would disagree with him - and there are plenty of Torontonians who would say that above all, Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods. Having family ties to the St. Clair W area, and having attended the deputations, that the opposition to the ROW has not been imported from Woodrbridge.
Perhaps he has surreptitious access to SOS's bank records - but I doubt it. It's no accident that Councillor's Palacio, Walker and Nunziata voted against the proposal - like all councillors looking to be re-elected, they have a good idea of what their constituents are thinking.
I'm not sure Mr. Bow's passion for transit necessarily qualifies him to speak on this issue. The TTC is full of people who are passionate about transit - but who are not delivering results for Torontonians. The last four years have seen operating costs skyrocket well beyond the rate of inflation. Mr. Bow can review and analyse the TTC's financial and operating result trends from the TTC website. He can go to the Urban Affairs library and pull up a report by the IBI group (2003) showing how poorly the streetcar system is performing; and how TTC buses are basically matching streetcars capacity on a boardings per service hour basis.
He might even find the quote where U of T Professor Richard Soberman states that the Spadina LRT is not an example of effective transit.
On a future visit to the city he might spend some time observing how badly bunched the CLRVs on that line become despite the dedicated lanes.
At least from his website, I don't see that he has. If he has, he's welcome to enlighten us.
It's funny that J. Albert should reference Richard Soberman, because according to Richard Soberman,"I don't think you can find a system in North America that operates better than the TTC."
Source: http://gtabus.natransit.com/news/981106better-tor.html
J. Albert's characterization of Soberman's comments on the Spadina streetcar ROW is misleading. Soberman was comparing bus service to the new ROW. That situation is completely different from the one on St. Clair, where streetcar service already exists.
Furthermore, J. Albert's comments on the performance of the streetcar system are arguments *for* a PROW, not against it.
Finally, it's funny that J. Albert mentions the IBI group study - the Ridership Growth Strategy is the way the city intends to try to meet some of the challenges outlined in the IBI study. And what do you think forms a part of the Ridership Growth Strategry? Private Streetcar ROWs.
Try again, J. Albert.
It seems to me that I am as qualified to comment as you are, Mr. Albert. I have an education in this field, work experience and a longstanding interest. And, just so we're clear, I am not an employee of the TTC and I never have been. Transit Toronto is entirely volunteer run, by transit enthusiasts and people interested in improving public transit service in the GTA. It accepts no public money.
Mr. Bow, your objectives are laudable - but, in my opinion, you would serve the public better by helping holding transit agencies to account for performance - rather than simply being a booster/cheerleader.
For example, one can be a Leaf's fan - but still oudly question and criticize why they are relying on oft-injured retreads.
The TTC are pushing ROWs - but they haven't even settled on the type of equipment they are going to run. It doesn't seem that any standard equipment is available will run on the ROW. This means that the TTC will be running unreliable equipment it is running now - or otherwise to purchase highly customized equipment. Highly customized equipment - which will also be expensive to maintain and ultimately just as unreliable.
Wouldn't it make more sense to plan the equipment, routes, service design etc. on an integrated basis - as has been the case for projects in York Region, Vancouver, Calgary and many other cities - but not in Toronto.
The TTC is currently studying possible replacements for the CLRV fleet, I'm sure they are looking at equipment that provides the best opportunity over the entire system. When looking at the cost of equipment, keep in mind that rail vehicles tend to last at least 30 years compared to 10-15 for buses (even less in the TTC’s experience.) Rail vehicles also accommodate more passengers and can provide lower costs on heavily traveled routes such as St. Clair. Criticizing the Scarborough RT is like shooting fish in a barrel, there isn't a transit expert or enthusiast in the city who won't argue that the RT is a failure. Building the RT was not the TTC's decision; the province forced the TTC's hand to accept the technology in exchange for funding the system. The TTC is currently studying the future of the RT and the long term costs of maintaining it vs. converting to heavy rail.
Replacing the current crop of city councillors will save the city a ton of money in the long run!
Wouldn't it make more sense to plan the equipment, routes, service design etc. on an integrated basis - as has been the case for projects in York Region, Vancouver, Calgary and many other cities - but not in Toronto.
On paper, yes. In practise, not necessarily. Regardless of what happens on St. Clair, the next generation of streetcars will have to conform to the standards set by Toronto's streets. To whit: 40' minimum turning radius, trolley poles, etc. These are tighter than the standard LRT equipment being considered for Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo, but consistent with systems already in place in Boston and Pittsburgh.
So, even if a right-of-way is installed for the latest and greatest of the off-the-shelf equipment available, you still have to answer the question of where this equipment has to be stored, and how to get said equipment from the ROW to the carbarns. Rebuilding the current dilapidated tracks to ROW standards costs, in and of itself, no more than $7 million over what is already budgeted. Upgrading the entire streetcar network is prohibitive.
But this isn't much of a problem. Even though the next generation of streetcars will have to be tweaked to operate on Toronto's current network, the tweaking isn't that onerous. It's for this reason Toronto still uses trolley poles instead of pantographs. It would cost too much to convert the system instead of the vehicle, and the old technology works well on its own. The Bombardier vehicles currently operating in Minneapolis can be modified to operate on a new ROW as well as the current streetcar network, with little additional cost.
Toronto's network has accepted a wide variety of streetcar designs which have functioned both on mixed traffic and in private right-of-way conditions. There's no need to totally reinvent the wheel, here. The Scarborough RT is a good example of what happens when you try to reinvent the wheel.
Mr. Bow - the pantograph and gauge issues may not be grave. However, it was reported (in the Globe I believe) that the closest available 'fit' to TTC requirements was 75%. The vehicles that Councillor Mihevc was most interested in could not make the 8% grade up Bathhurst to St. Clair.
Let's look at the issue of refurbishing vs. replacing the CLRVs. Up until earlier this year, the TTC had not studied the long term financials of this decision. How do I know that? I know that because one of the TTC Commissioners asked me to conduct such an analysis.
Another issue is platform length. The TTC envisages using multi-car trains (of what?) - yet the ROW would have not have been built to accomodate these.
The TTC is only now putting together specifications for replacement vehicles.
I'm sorry - this is just no way to run a railroad. All of these things should at least be considered and planned at a high level before this whole debacle of a process started.
Isn't it strange that there currently exists equipment that can handle the heavy grade on Bathurst Street? Isn't it strange that there has always been this equipment available? The Globe's report is inaccurate. The off-the-shelf models operated by Bombardier might not be able to handle the heavy grade without modification, but to think that the modifications would be prohibitive to replicate features we have had for almost a century is a little silly. And Bombardier isn't the only game in town.
Replacing the CLRVs with another streetcar model isn't rocket science. The vehicles already perform better than the average bus on high density lines, and putting these lines on reserved lanes only enhance the advantage. The next generation of streetcars won't be too different from the current generation. Hopefully, they'll be lighter (less wear and tear on track). Not much has to happen to make it happen.
And the TTC has no plans to operate these vehicles in multi-car configurations; at least, not on St. Clair. If the new vehicles were sufficient to replace the ALRVs, they'd have enough capacity on the streetcar routes to operate individually.
Mr. Bow - if you go and read the IBI study, you'll see that the CLRV/ALRV fleet combined average boardings per hour is roughly the same as the TTC 40' buses. This means that the real capacity being provided by the CLRVs is lower than for the buses - if you work it out the prorated numbers. This is all the more interesting given that many streetcar trips are quite short.
The CLRV's can't handle as many standing passengers as the buses because of the configuration. The TTC has removed a few seats on some models - but in reality, many people need to be sitting on the streetcar because of the way the vehicles accelerate and decelerate.
They also lose capacity because of the slow loading. Especially on a street like St. Clair, where there are many more mature people who find it difficult to get up the steps, or who even have canes and other walking aids, the slow loading saps any capacity advantage the larger vehicles might have.
There are also parents with strollers. The current vehicles just don't work with strollers - especially when at all busy. My sister will often take the Christie bus from St Clair W. and walk the remaining distance for this very reason.
If you look at the high-capacity bus routes in Montreal, you'll see that they are matching the capacity performance of streetcars. The Ave du Parc/Dorchester/Cote de Neiges route is now using 100% low floor buses.
Even Councillor Mihevc who voted for the ROW agrees that the resrved lane plan won't deliver the promised benefits with the current vehicles.
The 75% figure was reported from comments from TTC.
Yes - anything can be modified - but it takes $$$ - both in acquisition cost and in maintenance costs. Again, if you look at the IBI study and compare the TTC's streetcar maintenance costs vs - as an example - the C-train in Calgary, you'll see what I mean.
if you go and read the IBI study, you'll see that the CLRV/ALRV fleet combined average boardings per hour is roughly the same as the TTC 40' buses. This means that the real capacity being provided by the CLRVs is lower than for the buses - if you work it out the prorated numbers. This is all the more interesting given that many streetcar trips are quite short.
The CLRV's can't handle as many standing passengers as the buses because of the configuration.
This is a pretty serious manipulation of the facts. The reality is that a CLRV can handle a crush load of 132 passengers, and is rated for normal service usage of 102 passengers. The TTC allows CLRVs to handle an average load of 75 passengers before considering adding service; ALRVs get 110 passengers. Individual 40 foot buses can handle crush loads of only 100 passengers, and are typically rated for normal service usages of 75, and the TTC allows individual buses to handle an average load of 60 passengers before considering adding service. These are the technical specifications, and it's a reality that's experienced during rush hour on King, and during the weekends on Spadina. Streetcars are capable of carrying many more passengers than an average bus, and they do this during the peak periods of these routes. To keep up, routes like 35 Jane and 39 Finch have to ramp up their frequencies beyond what streetcars need to provide.
To replace the 30 streetcars per hour operating on King Street during rush hours, you would need more than 40 buses. That's the real capacity, here. The numbers you are throwing at me comes from simply looking at the passenger loads handled by bus and streetcar lines throughout the day, cobbling together an average, and concluding that since, on average, buses and streetcars carry the same number of people, streetcars are incapable of carrying more. That's not an accurate picture.
And I don't see how this point is relevant to the right-of-way project, when the TTC had a relatively simple (and cheap) means of improving the performance of a streetcar route on a major thoroughfare, a project that was supported by the majority of residents enroute, and a project that will be of benefit to the city and to the residents and businesses enroute, regardless of what the next generation of streetcars in this city looks like (though they may look sleeker and hopefully be lighter, operationally they won't be that much different from what is operating today).
P.S. It's also a given that the new vehicles will be low floor.
What an unfortunate waste of energy, seems from what I have read/meetings attended over the past two years, that the ideology of transit seems to outway the facts. SOS being blamed as car lovers is a myth perpetuated by the media. In fact, if you would take the time to read their mission statement, they are in favour of transit improvements that call for a more balanced use of the space. There is so much misinformation out there, such as sidewalk widths being maintained...that is just not true...did you all see the markings last summer showing where the cuts were...did you all read the statistics? There are cost effective stategies that could be used to allow for the transit improvements that everyone wants, without the negative impacts that are part of the TTC's own data.
The whole thing about reducing sidewalk width is a bit of a red herring. It wasn't part of the original proposal. It WAS inserted by the city. Why? Because groups like Save Our St. Clair fretted about the reduction of car capacity on St. Clair. The TTC didn't ask for this change; the City brought it in to placate opponents of the project. So it's a little disingenuous to then turn around and point to reduced sidewalk widths as a reason why the TTC is shafting the neighbourhood with this project.
Mr. Bow - you are good at reading the official specs - but you don't ride these vehicles in rush hour. Your won't often get more than about 30 standees on the CLRV - people won't move to the back because the aisle is too restricted. Throw in a few backpacks and it gets worse. Even if people do move to the back - the process is so slow that loading crawls to a halt. I've seen one stop take up to 4 minutes. In order to provide capacity, the vehicle must actually be in motion.
The result is that the streetcar just moves on and passengers wait for the next car. That's everyday reality - and is borne out in the operating statistics.
Now replacing the streetcars with light-rail equipment/service (multiple doors, pre-purchased tickets/POP, greater distance between stops, level loading, sparse seat layout) would give the ROW more capacity than bus service. However, at the time of the council decision, the TTC had simply planned to refurbish the current vehicles.
Only this spring/summer did the they move to consider using light-rail equipment. Perhaps this court imposed halt to the project will allow the TTC to get it's plans in order. This should be done as a matter of common sense - and not to mention a basic courtesy to those whose lives will be impacted.
Mr. Bow - you are good at reading the official specs - but you don't ride these vehicles in rush hour. Your won't often get more than about 30 standees on the CLRV
Actually, I have ridden these vehicles in rush hour. They do get more than thirty standees. I've counted. Even if they didn't get too many more, given that the CLRVs are already seating forty-six, you're already above eighty, and people do stand in the back. Thus a CLRV in rush-hour is already carrying more than a crush load on a 40' bus.
Which, incidentally, has the exact same issues of bunching and backpacked standees.
But I'll grant you that the capacity of the streetcars could be improved if more doors were added, if boardings were allowed at all doors, and if the vehicles were low floor. Heck, they could solve the problem of bunching on the Spadina streetcar route if they installed fare gates at Spadina station, replaced the CLRVs with ALRVs and ran the service on POP like Queen.
But that doesn't make for a dramatically different streetcar. Most models on the market these days are low floor. The cost of modifying the models to operate on Toronto's current network aren't too onerous (certainly they're less onerous than transforming the whole system to accept unmodified Bombardier models). The private right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue would not look much different even if the most state-of-the-art, unmodified LRT vehicle were purchased.
I applaud the TTC for going for new models instead of planning to refurbish all of the CLRVs. But it doesn't make much difference to how the St. Clair right-of-way needs to be designed. The right-of-way can handle CLRVs and new LRT vehicles equally well. The capacity of the new LRT vehicles likely won't be much larger than an ALRV, and the safety islands on St. Clair Avenue were already long enough to accommodate them, and were only being expanded to facilitate the movement of passengers from the islands to the sidewalk.
j, albert:
Check you facts again, the recommendation to the TTC Commissioners at their June 22/05 meeting was to approve the refurbishment of 100 CLRV's and initiate the process of finding a replacement low-floor vehicle. The contingency plan, if a replacement vehicle cannot be obtained by the time the CLRVs need to be replaced, is to refurbish the remaining 96 CLRVs.
The reality is that CLVRs will be replaced, it is pointless to use their short-comings as arguments against the effectiveness of the ROW. The CLRVs are a poor design that do not take into account the needs of a high-density transit corridor. They were the last examples of true 19th century streetcar design and are not representative of modern light rail vehicles. And to think that the new vehicles will not be able to handle the Bathurst Street hill is absurd, modern light-rail vehicles are built for every part of the world, to think they won't be able to climb the hill is shallow thinking.
The anti-ROW crowd needs to get their heads examined. I live at the Yonge and St. Clair and already see the improvements, go check it out for yourself, the level of urban design will only increase the street's attractiveness. I have no desire to ever shop or visit St. Clair as it exists today, the road is a mess and the streetscape is brutal. However, once the ROW opens, I will check it out and possibly find some shops that I enjoy.
Anonymous has his chronology all messed up. June 22/05 is months after the ROW was approved by council. The ROW was based on refurbishing the existing units. My opposition to the ROW was that as proposed, bus service would be better.
I provided one of the TTC Commissioners a financial analysis that showed the benefits of eschewing the refurbishment step - and proceeding directly with replacement. The fact that we wil still have to endure the remaining CLRVs for a few more decades is because the TTC weren't doing their homework. They should have been working on the vehicle selection and service design for the replacements a couple of years ago. In my opinion, the ROW would have had found more acceptance if the TTC had:
- put forth an integrated plan
- honestly considered alternatives.
Right now, many people just don't trust TTC and council. Many of the promises made in council as ammendments to the vote have quietly been dropped. Toronto Hydro was supposed to be 'asked' to bury the hydro lines - but guess what, no money.
You can stay away from St. Clair if you wish. My sister lives in the neighbourhood - so I can attest that the retail and restaurant scene has picked up markedly over the last 8 years. Nighbourhoods such as Hillcrest Village have seen well above city average increases in property values. Many people have converted delapidated rental splits back into family homes.
One of the hottest neighbourhoods areas in Canada is the 'Plateau' in Montreal. This is served by the STM's express BUS service which gets people right downtown. Avenue du Parc has nice wide sidewalks, room for cafes, and an attractive ambience. None of this can be said for Spadina Ave in Toronto.
In terms of vehicles not being able to climb 8% grades - most trains cannot climb such grades. The low friction between wheel and rail that allows low rolling restistance makes it difficult to start from a stop - or climb grades. This is why locomotives carry sand. Sand is released onto the track to allow locomotives something on which to grip when getting under way - i.e. to avoid what is called 'wheel slippage'. One of the reasons that the Montreal chose rubber wheeled vehicles for the Metro was to be able to engineer the tunnels at steeper grades.
In my counting, the actual practical capacity of the CLRV and 40' bus are about the same - between 75 and 80. However, the CLRV loads more slowly - so the carrying capacity of the line (rather that the vehicle) is reduced.
"St. Clair as it exists today, the road is a mess and the streetscape is brutal."
The TTC can still repair the tracks, the roadway and streetscape without a ROW. Look at the wonderful job on Queen, College, Broadview and Gerrard.
I would shudder at the thought they would put a ROW on any of those routes. Why pick on St.Clair? Because it's wider and accomodates more vehicular traffic. Thats not a good enough reason. Keep ideology out of the planning process. I'm not surprised this project was halted, it was poorly thought out and rammed down this neighbourhoods throat. Read the article in today's Star, even the proponents of streetcars were not happy with the process.
As you can see, there are a diversity of opinions, here, and we're probably not going to convince each other; we're just going to repeat ourselves. But I'll finish off with this: My experience is that CLRVs carry 25% more passengers than an average bus, and that travel speeds are determined far more by the traffic the vehicles are competing with than with the vehicle designs themselves. In other words, put a bus on a route a CLRV is tackling, and it will slow down too. You're comparing apples and oranges in order to push your conclusions, Mr. Albert, and as a result, your numbers aren't accurate.
The new LRTs, which I heartily support, will operate in mixed traffic, and will operate on Spadina Avenue without substantial modification. Whether the St. Clair ROW handles refurbished CLRVs or new LRT vehicles, it will still represent a substantial improvement over what exists, and that improvement will have been achieved at very little cost. CLRVs on this right of way are much better than buses. The new LRTs will be even better. And nothing has to change on this proposal.
To anonymous: you are right in the assessment of why St. Clair was "singled out". Not only is the street wide enough to handle PROW, it had PROW until the early 1930s. And given that streetcars carry as many passengers on the street during peak hours as automobiles, it makes sense to me that this low-cost improvement should be made, especially as the city is going to grow, and St. Clair will see an influx of people. In ten years time, you can expect proposals to surface to extend the St. Clair streetcar to Scarlett Road. The right-of-way will increase the number of people the street can carry, and it will bring more people to the businesses that operate on St. Clair.
Your statement that this proposal was rammed down the neighbourhood's throat is disputable. I can find a number of people in your neighbourhood who disagree with you and with the Star's assessment. There were 56 public meetings, and most of the people who spoke at these meetings supported the proposal. Most of the local residents polled support this proposal. The City bent over backwards the accommodate SOS's objections, adding streetscape improvements, replacing lost on-street parking with off-street parking, cutting back sidewalks to maintain car capacity, but the opponents took an all-or-nothing attitude.
I've found the opposition to this project to be, in my opinion, short-sighted and based on inaccurate information. I have heard from project supporters who were intimidated by SOS protesters as they entered these open public meetings. It's almost enough to want to give up and let the opponents have their way, no matter how much harm this will do to St. Clair (the St. Clair streetcar will never be extended to Scarlett Road under current conditions). But I am heartened by the considerable number of residents and businesses who backed this proposal, who backed SCRIPT, and who pushed for this project in a quiet way that was, sadly, largely ignored by the media. These people haven't had the money and the media attention that SOS has, but they are hardworking and they are of the neighbourhood and for the neighbourhood.
Now that this proposal has been stalled because of the exploitation of a legal technicality, the proponents of this project, including SCRIPT, are realizing that they have to make a more noise to make their project come to pass. As the individual behind this blog noted, the proponents and SCRIPT took a conciliatory approach. They tried to let the process sort this all out, they held out compromise proposals, but they've essentially been shouted down. Time to shout back. That's why it's time for this boycott.
This web page and the interest it has generated should tell you that this dispute is more than just "little" SOS fighting "tyrannical" City Hall. The real little guy has been those individual citizens who have backed this project despite the more outspoken opponents who have tried to shout this project down. And the real tyrants have been those (not you Mr. Albert; you've been very respectful in your debate) who have been telling supporters to sit down and shut up.
A note on jaywalking; it's actually easier to jaywalk on Spadina Ave, where the streetcar barriers give jaywalkers a safe place to stop half way accross the street, and wait for traffic to be clear from the other side. Right now jaywalkers on St. Clair (myself included) have to wait to cross until the the traffic from both directions is clear.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Bow - it's good to remind people to be respectful. Backs are up on both sides. Someone (an anonymous someone) left some threatening sounding literature around the St. Clair W neighbourhoods - this someone was pro-ROW.
I've heard that some of the promised off street parking will not be materializing. The way this city operates, it's hard to know whether this is true or not. Promises from City Hall are not something that can be taken to the back with any assurance.
Understand that a typical small business owner has EVERYTHING he owns tied up in his (or her) business. To lose a chunk of one's customer base, and have problems taking deliveries is a very scary prospect. Yes - there may be other customers - maybe.
We'll just have to disagree over the capacity. I'll have to go with my day to day experience and the numbers I see published.
Rumour and innuendo is what the debate on St. Clair has been based on, not the facts. The City is being accused of not providing the necessary replacement parking and that it's reneging on its commitment. Anyone who thinks about finding off-street parking should logically deduce that the City would need to find lots for sale and buy them. This doesn't happen overnight, and gee, sometimes deals fall through. Don't give credibility to every rumour or innuendo that's been floating around, just like the media, it's maybe got a small (tiny) basis in fact, but which tiny fact is it?
The failure to provide the promised off street parking was mentioned in Royson James' column in The Starthis morning - so now it is more than a rumour.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I, of course, a newcomer to this blog, but the author does not agree
Post a Comment
<< Home