Canadian urban Mass Transit Systems. All the maps are to scale.
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/2484/cmts1kf.jpg

Canadian urban Mass Transit Systems. All the maps are to scale.
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/2484/cmts1kf.jpg


Looks good, but I'm certain that the Calgary one is too small. The way you've got it there, Edmonton's looks almost as long as the S-NW line of the C-Train, when it's less than half the length of that line. Calgary's total system length is 42km on 2 lines, whereas Edmonton's is only 12km on one line.

The majority of the MT look like they use grid patterns (probably due to roads) but Vancouvers is all over the place ;)

^Lol... They still do follow major roads. Keep in mind that a lot of it is elevated and crosses rivers. There also should be an arm that juts out to the airport, not that little sguiggle crap.

Vancouver's NE line & RAV aren't built yet. I wonder why they're included. Same for Toronto's Downsview-York University extension.

Hmm, it seems the person is right about the calgary one's length. But, the Vancouver region's, Ottawa's, Montreal's, Edmonton's, and Toronto's are to the same scale. I'll have to check Calgary's again. I've included the 'certain to be built' extensions. That's why I haven't included the Eglinton west line or Sheppard extensions. BTW, I found this map. I don't even know what the red thing is on the calgary map.

Not sure if all the streetcar routes should be included in mass transit, as they operate very much like buses (exception Spadina line).
Also, GO transit should debatably be included as this is mass transit.

If GO were included, then the uh, that train service in Vancouver should also be included. I would include the two, but GO train lines would be much to big an undertaking for me. Perhaps during the winter holiday.

These are not maps of mass transit, cuz buses are mass transit too. These are maps of [/b]rail transit[/b]. GO Transit should definately be included, and also Montreal's AMT should be too.

nice, but if you're gonna include Vancouver's RAV there's a T-spand in Richmond to the airport terminals.

Those are pretty cool. Commuter rail should probably be added though.

Don't forget Vancouver's WCE.

^^ That's the one.

Thats pretty cool, where did it come from? The only problem is its missing the Vancouver airport line.

very good work, I like how you included TO's streetcar network... it's often overlooked

^ The street car system isn't mass transit like subways, LRTs, light rail and skytrain. IMO they are glorified buses since they mostly don't have there own right of way. Vancouver's trolly buses do the same thing only with rubber tires, they even operate on there own right of way on Granville street downtown.

http://ktransit.com/transit/Canada/Vancouver/ETB/van-etb-downtown-042103-03.jpg
http://gatheringofthefellowship.org/GOTF2003/images/torontostreetcar.jpg

yawn, dont even begin comparing the two. Streetcars are loved and create ridership, buses are hated and certainly dont draw people to public transit.

^ The street car system isn't mass transit like subways, LRTs, light rail and skytrain. IMO they are glorified buses since they mostly don't have there own right of way. Vancouver's trolly buses do the same thing only with rubber tires, they even operate on there own right of way on Granville street downtown.

Actually, Queen's Quay & Spadina have right of ways. I hope the same could be implemented in Vancouver, but those NIMBYs keep getting in the way.

yawn, dont even begin comparing the too.

Fine then I won't. :runaway:

Actually, Queen's Quay & Spadina have right of ways. I hope the same could be implemented in Vancouver, but those NIMBYs keep getting in the way.

there are also a handfull of underground streetcar stations....

"Thats pretty cool, where did it come from? The only problem is its missing the Vancouver airport line." I'll make sure that's added. I don't know what the hell that squiggle at the bottom is though.

Why would streetcars and suburban trains be included? Neither of them are urban mass transit. Streetcars move as many people as buses do (hence not mass), and suburban rail, as the name says, is not urban.

Montreal's is obviously the most comprehensive system in the country. It has the most stations and it is focused in moving people within the city and not from the suburbs towards the city, as is the case in Vancouver and to a certain extent Toronto.
Also, the green line west from Lionel Groulx to Angrignon seems a little weird, it seems to go a bit north and it seems shorter than it actually is.

Vancouver's NE line & RAV aren't built yet. I wonder why they're included. Same for Toronto's Downsview-York University extension.


Exactly; Montreal's orange line expanssion to Laval from Henri-Bourassa to Montmorency, on the other hand is being built and is due to open early in the spring.

Is the map down or is it just my computer?

it's down

They're back up.

Why would streetcars and suburban trains be included? Neither of them are urban mass transit. Streetcars move as many people as buses do (hence not mass), and suburban rail, as the name says, is not urban.

Tiring when people speak of things they know nothing about. Streetcars are considerably higher capacity than buses. Why is this so hard to understand for the cities that don't have them?

thanks for this addisonwesley (you are a textbook arent' ya?) i've always wanted to see how toronto's mass tranist system stacked up to other Canadian cities. i give this thread 10/10! lol

Tiring when people speak of things they know nothing about. Streetcars are considerably higher capacity than buses. Why is this so hard to understand for the cities that don't have them?

I wouldnt necessarily say that for all buses. The B-Line from Skytrain to UBC in Vancouver uses the D60LF and D60HF, which probably holds about the same amount of people as one streetcar, and travels way faster than a streetcar would in the same situation. Connecting two trains does not count, as two buses can also go at the same time.

Tiring when people speak of things they know nothing about. Streetcars are considerably higher capacity than buses. Why is this so hard to understand for the cities that don't have them?


dude get over it, buses on rails thats all it is.

Wow, I really don't want to get into an argument, but one TTC streetcar alone can hold 132 passengers, while a 'double streetcar' can hold up to 205 passengers. For buses, depends on which type your transit systems uses.

^ The street car system isn't mass transit like subways, LRTs, light rail and skytrain.

You don't make any sense.

Streetcars are light-rail. LRT's are light rail. Skytrain is light-rail. There are all light rail.

You don't make any sense.

Streetcars are light-rail. LRT's are light rail. Skytrain is light-rail. There are all light rail.

A steet car is a bus on tracks a LRT is a train that sometimes runs on the streets. They are not in anyway the same.

Lightrail (LRT)
http://www.nwvirtualtransit.com/tours/westside/bc6.jpg
http://www.nwvirtualtransit.com/tours/westside/bc5.jpg

Street Car
http://www.deltos.com/reference/MT/archives/photos/Toronto%20Streetcar.jpg

Toronto's street car's have more incommon with trolleys
http://www.nwvirtualtransit.com/vancouverbc/trolleybuses.jpg
Which injoy the same frequency and ridership as the street cars, only with less capacity.


BTW I hear the streetcars arnt any good since they often get stuck in the snow.
http://www.tpg1.com/protest/metro/stalled_scs.jpeg

SkyTrain is LRT, but it has a lot more in common with subways than LRT.

Vancouver's SkyTrain is all over the place.
It is point to point travel unlike Tor/Mon/Cal which were built from the downtown and then out. Vancouver has the weird idea of serving suburbanites with SkyTrain which are almost useless to most Vancouver city dwellers. Its also known as poor urban planning.
This is why Vancouver's SkyTrain which has cost triple the amount of Calgary's CTrain in a urban area twice the size but carries almost exactly the same number of passengers.
This is an example of Calgary spending its dollars wisely to create great transit while Vancouver's SkyTrain is primarily suburban but is good for ribbon cutting ceremonies.

The main concern for the TTC's streetcar routes is capacity. Sure you can put 2 trolly buses on the street instead of 1 streetcar, but that would only cost you more. Not to mention that on a street without a ROW, more vehicles contribute to more congestion. That's why when there were trolly buses in Toronto, they were on low-demand, residential routes) you won't find them on Toronto's streets anymore. In short, with a trolly bus, you do have greater flexability and lower emmisions, but you have the same low capacity with much more required infrastructure (save the tracks). Plus, Toronto already had most of its original tracks, so the abandonment policy followed by so many other NA cities was scrapped. If they were really just buses on tracks, why would you think so many cities around the world are still using streetcars and trams? And why would other NA cities be trying to catch up again?

RAV will serve people in Vancouver well and same with the future M-line extention. For downtown I think that 7 stations in the downtown core will be good, since we have a excellent trolley system and the planned street car will complement it nicely. All though I wish that RAV would terrminate at Coal harbour near the park instead of waterfront.

Uh, yes..

A steet car is a bus on tracks a LRT is a train that sometimes runs on the streets. They are not in anyway the same.

Lightrail (LRT)
http://www.nwvirtualtransit.com/tours/westside/bc6.jpg
http://www.nwvirtualtransit.com/tours/westside/bc5.jpg

Street Car
http://www.deltos.com/reference/MT/archives/photos/Toronto%20Streetcar.jpg



Wrong. Those "trains" can be put on the same tracks that the streetcars operate on (the TTC was actually considering this). They are the same.

Streetcars, trams, and LRT are all light rail although in NA LRT does have more of a conitation of Light RAPID transit, like Calgary's Ctrain or Edmonton LRT.
LRT has more of a conitation as a elevated or exclusive subway type usuage.

Vancouver's SkyTrain is all over the place.
It is point to point travel unlike Tor/Mon/Cal which were built from the downtown and then out. Vancouver has the weird idea of serving suburbanites with SkyTrain which are almost useless to most Vancouver city dwellers. Its also known as poor urban planning.
This is why Vancouver's SkyTrain which has cost triple the amount of Calgary's CTrain in a urban area twice the size but carries almost exactly the same number of passengers.
This is an example of Calgary spending its dollars wisely to create great transit while Vancouver's SkyTrain is primarily suburban but is good for ribbon cutting ceremonies.
coming from someone who doesnt live in vancouver

i use the skytrain daily to go not only downtown but to school and work. keep in mind that the skytrain passes by metrotown, new westminster, surrey, lougheed and brentwood mallsand the lake city way industrial area. it serves areas of much higher density the south and west sides of vancouver. although it is somewhat suburban, it only goes to the inner ring suburbs that are closely connected with vancouver. plus i have easy acess to surrey in case i feel like getting robbed

What characteristic of streetcars gives them a higher capacity than buses? For example couldn't a trolleybus be just made to the same dimensions as a streetcar?

^ no

If trolleybuses and streetcars are the same, then Ottawa's busways and Vancouver's skytrain are the same too.

Updated map, sorry about the calgary transit one. I will be able to fix it if I can find a scale map of the system. Vancouver's one is fixed though:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2279/cmts2vm.jpg

Oh, if somebody could get me scale maps of GO rail, AMT, and the west coast express, I would probably be able to get them into the map. Toronto and Calgary seem to have the only hub and spoke type layouts.

I think we are confusing "mass transit" with "rapid transit". Mass transit is basically inner-city public transit, with high ridership, high frequency, high route coverage, and more or less 24hr service. The vehicle doesn't matter. And it does not include suburban commuter transit.

Rapid transit is strictly describing inner-city routes designed for longer travel lengths and separate from regular traffic...like heavy rail subways or light rail that has the same route characteristics as heavy rail (like Vancouver's Skytrain).

Streetcars and buses are definetely not the same animal at all....that's why they serve certain routes in the old city, and carry ridership between a bus and a subway (although many TTC bus or streetcar routes could support subways). But streetcars (ROWS or not) are not "rapid" transit...at least not on TTC routes....they are short-haul trip modes (although i would gladly take the Queen car all the way from Roncy to The Beach simply because it is a pleasant ride and is direct...as opposed to say going up to the subway...across to Woodbine...and transfer to the bus down to Queen again).

The maps don't really tell the story, as there is a huge difference between the inner-city T1 TTC subway train , and Vancouver's hybrid suburban commuter Skytrain. Not to say one is "better" than the other...they simply serve very different transit needs of two different cities....Toronto needs to operate all it's modes separately, while Vancouver needs to operate a hybrid system.













"Montreal's is obviously the most comprehensive system in the country. It has the most stations and it is focused in moving people within the city and not from the suburbs towards the city, as is the case in Vancouver and to a certain extent Toronto."


Montreal's is definetely not the most "comprehensive" in the country at all. It's "subway" system is not larger than Toronto's at all, and is certainly not connected to the rest of the transit system remotely as good as the TTC. Route miles, service frequency, inter-connectivity, ridership nor cost-efficiency is as good as the TTC.








"BTW I hear the streetcars arnt any good since they often get stuck in the snow. "


I've never heard of a streetcar getting stuck in the snow...they are on rails...it's basically impossible. "If" there is a big snowstorm (which we don't get a lot of), and "if" the road hasn't been cleared yet...and "if" a CAR get's stuck in the snow in front of a streetcar, it could delay the streetcar until the car gets unstuck. But I suspect you are just making up petty reasons to knock Toronto...not discuss the ins-and-outs of public transit.






KGB

This link was also posted at SSP:

http://www.radicalcartography.net/?subways

The following qualifications apply to those diagrams (which AW used to make his own):

Urban Mass Transit Systems of North America (not including systems that serve a single hub station or where fare is calculated by distance - i.e. excluding most Commuter or Regional Rail)

Subject to the above qualification, the Key for that diagram says the maps indicate:

Heavy & light rail
Trolleys, people movers and dedicated busways

That said, the B-Lines indicated on their map for Vancouver are not "dedicated busways" except for short segments.

Oh, if somebody could get me scale maps of GO rail, AMT, and the west coast express, I would probably be able to get them into the map. Toronto and Calgary seem to have the only hub and spoke type layouts.


http://www.amt.qc.ca/tc/carte/AMT_Trains_2005.jpg

^^I too found that map on ATM's website, but I don't know what scale it is.

http://www.transittoronto.org/archives/maps/gorail.gif

Hope this helps. Kinda old but everything looks like it's there.

HA, wow, awesome. Thanks.

Thats a great map, thanks.

Vancouver has only one line, WestCoastExpress and its pretty basic and carries only 9,000 pass/day.

Nice!! Thanks for the scale maps..:)

Thats a great map, thanks.

Vancouver has only one line, WestCoastExpress and its pretty basic and carries only 9,000 pass/day.

do you think that if there were more lines (ie. to delta, surrey, langley) there would be more passengers on it? do you think that it would be more popular and you'd hear more about it?

Okay, so now there's GO Rail, and WCE. Unfortunately, there are some issues with Montreal's AMT; it shows one of the subway station interchanges to be south of another, whilst in actuallity they lie more or less on what appears to be the same horizontal. Hopefully I can fix this by weekend. Sorry about calgary, I still have to find a track map of it.

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/5861/cmts8rj.jpg

do you think that if there were more lines (ie. to delta, surrey, langley) there would be more passengers on it? do you think that it would be more popular and you'd hear more about it?

He does not realize that Vancouver's employment nodes are dispersed across the region (as opposed to Toronto where a high concentration of employment opportunities is within the CBD) , and that ridership potential will never be enough to support these new lines.

Okay, so now there's GO Rail, and WCE. Unfortunately, there are some issues with Montreal's AMT; it shows one of the subway station interchanges to be south of another, whilst in actuallity they lie more or less on what appears to be the same horizontal. Hopefully I can fix this by weekend. Sorry about calgary, I still have to find a track map of it.

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/5861/cmts8rj.jpg

wow this great, love to see it with Montreals commuter rail.

For the Coquitlam Line on the Vancouver map, you may as well delete the loopy part - that's the B-Line route on Guildford Way - the LRT will be on Lougheed Highway which is parallel to the WCE then turn north a couple of blocks.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/section_pics/Plans_Projects/CoqLine/coq_map_lg.jpg

Thats a great map, thanks.

Vancouver has only one line, WestCoastExpress and its pretty basic and carries only 9,000 pass/day.


Where exactly would a new line go? Under burrard inlet and over the mountains to Horshoe Bay? How bout under the georgia strait to Nanaimo. My point is that geography restricts the West Coast express and can pretty much only go west-east.

Updated map, sorry about the calgary transit one. I will be able to fix it if I can find a scale map of the system. Vancouver's one is fixed though:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2279/cmts2vm.jpg

Oh, if somebody could get me scale maps of GO rail, AMT, and the west coast express, I would probably be able to get them into the map. Toronto and Calgary seem to have the only hub and spoke type layouts.

You still forgot the extenssion in the Montreal system from Henri Bourassa to Montmorency in Laval (orange line).

http://www.stcum.qc.ca/English/metro/images/planmet2004.gif

Note expansion:

Station Cartier
http://www.amt.qc.ca/grandsprojets/image/metrolaval/photos/Station_Cartier.jpg

Station de la Concorde
http://www.amt.qc.ca/grandsprojets/image/metrolaval/photos/Station_Concorde.jpg

Station Montmorency
http://www.amt.qc.ca/grandsprojets/image/metrolaval/photos/Station_Montmorency.jpg

Tunnel Profile
http://www.amt.qc.ca/grandsprojets/image/metrolaval/photos/Profil_du_tunnel.jpg

Construction Pics:
http://www.amt.qc.ca/grandsprojets/metrolaval/photos/index.asp

wow... looks like no expense is too great for the montreal subway system! The designs of the stations are great and i love how each has their own unique characteristics.

I SERIOUSLY HOPE the gov't gives funding for more toronto subway expansions...also, i would give up on the spadina line extention and rather have most stations remodelled since many on the bloor line esp. seem so utilitarian.

^^ each metro station is unique, moreso inside than outside.

that was the original concept of the metro.

I hope the new stations will be decorated each by different artists .

do you think that if there were more lines (ie. to delta, surrey, langley) there would be more passengers on it? do you think that it would be more popular and you'd hear more about it?

Vancouver is to dence, the only suburbs other then the ones already served would be White Rock/South Surrey, but bus service between Vancouver is good and the tracks already have heavy usesage with USA bound freight.

He does not realize that Vancouver's employment nodes are dispersed across the region (as opposed to Toronto where a high concentration of employment opportunities is within the CBD) , and that ridership potential will never be enough to support these new lines.

Acutally, a lot of Toronto business is all over the place too. Airport Corporate Park, Meadowvale Business Park, Sheridan Business Park, Markham, York Region, Mississauga (exluding the first three business parks), Vaughan, up Yonge Street into NYCC, and other areas are all becoming major employment areas in the GTA, though DT TO is still the densest.

Vancouver is to dence, the only suburbs other then the ones already served would be White Rock/South Surrey, but bus service between Vancouver is good and the tracks already have heavy usesage with USA bound freight.
I agree. If the government felt it was time to serve those areas, it would not be hard at all to extend skytrain from Surrey to White Rock. I think that a good plan in the future would be to do that, then extend RAV from Richmond (down the 99 corridor), have a big station/bus loop to serve Ladner, Tsawassen and the ferry terminal and then continue the line down 99 and eventually join up in White Rock.

Acutally, a lot of Toronto business is all over the place too. Airport Corporate Park, Meadowvale Business Park, Sheridan Business Park, Markham, York Region, Mississauga (exluding the first three business parks), Vaughan, up Yonge Street into NYCC, and other areas are all becoming major employment areas in the GTA,

though DT TO is still the densest.

You nailed it with this point. Vancouver's downtown office space is rather dismal when compared to Calgary or Toronto. It might have something to do with Vancouver not being a HQ city (hence there was no need to locate downtown), or the fact that there's not enough land left over for commerical development.

And believe me, I know how dispersed Toronto's suburban office parks are, I'm one those suckers who have to cram on the 400series highways everyday to get to work in the 905. I wish my company was downtown, but they chose the 905 instead :( and now I have to live with this reality. Luckily, this is a temp contract.

Vancouver's SkyTrain is.... point to point travel unlike Tor/Mon/Cal which were built from the downtown and then out.

Just to clarify, Skytrain was built from downtown, and then out. Why do I even bother to correct you. It seems every thread you try to argue that red is blue.

Vancouver could sure use the advice from those people who designed those Montreal stations, for its RAV line.

I agree. If the government felt it was time to serve those areas, it would not be hard at all to extend skytrain from Surrey to White Rock. I think that a good plan in the future would be to do that, then extend RAV from Richmond (down the 99 corridor), have a big station/bus loop to serve Ladner, Tsawassen and the ferry terminal and then continue the line down 99 and eventually join up in White Rock.

not hard?

1. The government doesn't have the money.
2. South Delta and South Surrey/White Rock don't have the population to support such a line.

Vancouver is to [sic] dence [sic],[sic] the only suburbs other then [sic] the ones already served would be White Rock/South Surrey, but bus service between Vancouver is good and the tracks already have heavy usesage [sic] with USA bound freight.I hate you for what you are doing to my language.


It really depends where you get your stats from regarding density, but it seems safe to assume Vancouver doesn't have as much downtown employment as other cities. Could Vancouver's lack of centralization possibly stem from its reluctance to build freeways leading into downtown? We all know of the vancouverite everyman's victory over the ominously termed "downtown eastside penetrator," (nimbyism if you so choose to term it) but is it possible that this pushed development to areas that are easier to access? Couldn't long-haul rail transit (that isn't being developed because of lack of demand) create demand, in the way the millenium line is used to justify new condo towers in the middle of nowhere?

Updated map, sorry about the calgary transit one. I will be able to fix it if I can find a scale map of the system. Vancouver's one is fixed though:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2279/cmts2vm.jpg

You should add in the sLRT line in Edmonton that is currently u/c.

http://www.edmontonslrt.com/

Does this entrance to St.George Station still exist?
http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/5256/1963image30mp.jpg

Anyway, who knows what the YorkU stations might look like? They might look just as good as the Montreal ones or even better. I think the feds should concentrate on holding the TTC together before they [ever get to]spending on such niceties.

^^Sorbara has resigned, so there may be a change of plans in the works.

not hard?

1. The government doesn't have the money.
2. South Delta and South Surrey/White Rock don't have the population to support such a line.
1. The government does have the money.
2. I said if the gov't EVER felt the need to. That does not mean I want it to get build right now.

1. The government does have the money.
2. I said if the gov't EVER felt the need to. That does not mean I want it to get build right now.

No the government DOESN'T have the money. It's a fact the Canada's government is cash-trapped.

If the government has the money, Canada's transportation systems would not be so outdated compared to their European and Asian counterparts. Just have a look at the buses and trolleys.

How do you know that Canada won't have the money ten years from now? Surrey is a booming city. If RAV is feesible now, a small King George extention is aswell.

No the government DOESN'T have the money. It's a fact the Canada's government is cash-trapped.

If the government has the money, Canada's transportation systems would not be so outdated compared to their European and Asian counterparts. Just have a look at the buses and trolleys.

I don't think money's the problem, especially when Canadians are burdened with heavy taxes. Simply put, Canadians are overtaxed, especially at the federal level. Rather, public transportation is not a top priority in Canada (as opposed to say Hong Kong or Europe), and hence the lack of investment in this area.

Besides, in Canada's poltical reality, investment in public transportation wouldn't score as many political points as say education or healthcare.

I agree. If the government felt it was time to serve those areas, it would not be hard at all to extend skytrain from Surrey to White Rock. I think that a good plan in the future would be to do that, then extend RAV from Richmond (down the 99 corridor), have a big station/bus loop to serve Ladner, Tsawassen and the ferry terminal and then continue the line down 99 and eventually join up in White Rock.

why would they run skytrain through farmers fields all the way to a spread out suburb. mabey west coast express. is that green line on the vancouver map the coquitlam center b-line or the proposed coquitlam lrt?

Does this entrance to St.George Station still exist?
http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/5256/1963image30mp.jpg

Anyway, who knows what the YorkU stations might look like? They might look just as good as the Montreal ones or even better. I think the feds should concentrate on holding the TTC together before they [ever get to]spending on such niceties.

That's the St. George Street entrance and yes, it's still intact.

The best route for a new commuter line would be to use the line that goes to Langley.
It gets there via the line that runs parrrell to Broadway where a section of SkyTrain runs above it.
Langley Centre, LangleyEast, Cloverdale, Newton, Scott Road south then up to ScottRoad station, over the bridge to NuWest, Lougheed would also have stations.
It would then head to Waterfront and importantly have a station at Broadway where ther are two SkyTrain stations and and the very busy Broadway corridor.
I think that run would get much higher than the current line.
The WCE is great if going downtown but this would also have a station at Broadway so it would get all the extra passengers thru the city. WCE is somewhat useless if you are anywhere else in the city.

^
I forgot to mention that it could also have two overshoot lines.........one to North/Fort Langley and the WhiteRock line.

That's the St. George Street entrance and yes, it's still intact.

no more flags though =P

wow... looks like no expense is too great for the montreal subway system! The designs of the stations are great and i love how each has their own unique characteristics.


800 million to be exact; from a projected 300 million cost. It's a ridiculous ammount for an extenssion of hardly 10 kilometers and three stations. Oh well, I guess that's the last expanssion we'll see in a very long time.

There were talks of taking the blue line east from St. Michel into Vileray. I guess we won't see that for another 10 to 15 years. There's also the decades-long project to build a metro-tram (like in many European cities, as opposed to the bus-like Toronto streetcars) on Av. du Parc from Parc metro to Place-des-arts metro.

^ have you ever been to Europe, or are you just trying to stir crap up for no reason? It seems every non-European likes to say what a tram system is or is not. News flash: Toronto's streetcar system is a hell of a lot more similar to the European model than any other city on the continent.

IF you don't know what in the hell's name you're talking about, shut your mouth instead.

^ have you ever been to Europe, or are you just trying to stir crap up for no reason? It seems every non-European likes to say what a tram system is or is not. News flash: Toronto's streetcar system is a hell of a lot more similar to the European model than any other city on the continent.

IF you don't know what in the hell's name you're talking about, shut your mouth instead.

no its buses.

For being in Amsterdam last december, their slr is quieter and smoother and looks way better. At least they don't have their streets cluttered with a thousand cables.


The 800M extension was announced as being 180M by the government while fully knowing it would cost 700M (it went overboard by a 100M).

They did this because they wanted it to be done badly, and "lied" to the people. Kind of pathetic.

The metro line has to go under a river and is very very deep which bring costs way up.

oh and btw its 6.6km, which is around 155M/KM very comparable to other subways around the world like Toronto's for example (apx 145M/Km)

no its buses.

For being in Amsterdam last december, their slr is quieter and smoother and looks way better. At least they don't have their streets cluttered with a thousand cables.

So, your big argument (which is what all of these points belie) is that they have new streetcars. Sorry, nothing to do with the design and planning of routes themselves.

The cable thing is irrelevant. Some cities have them, others don't. I don't find that to be a compelling argument, since the vast majority of European streetcar routes use cables.

^ have you ever been to Europe, or are you just trying to stir crap up for no reason? It seems every non-European likes to say what a tram system is or is not. News flash: Toronto's streetcar system is a hell of a lot more similar to the European model than any other city on the continent.

IF you don't know what in the hell's name you're talking about, shut your mouth instead.

I AM from Europe; Portugal to be more precise (but that's ok...) ;) :|

I've been to more countries than you can count, I have been to most major European cities (while you probably havn't left Misassauga... or however the fuck you spell it).

Let me give you a small example of what a real tram system looks like. The system in the second city in my country, Oporto is what you can actually call a rapid transit or mass transit tram system.

It's all about having the right-of-way... which Toronto's ailing (read shitty) streetcar system does not have. ;)

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/por/por-matsul.jpg

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/por/por-srmatost1.jpg

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/por/por-scen-pedhisp.jpg

http://mportoestacoes1.no.sapo.pt/campanha/Camp_112005.jpg

http://mportoestacoes1.no.sapo.pt/campanha/DSC06692.jpg

http://mportoestacoes1.no.sapo.pt/estadio_dragao/Estadio_113003.jpg

http://mportoestacoes1.no.sapo.pt/estadio_dragao/DSC06766.jpg

http://mportoestacoes1.no.sapo.pt/estadio_dragao/Estadio_113002.jpg

http://images.nycsubway.org//i33000/img_33820.jpg

http://images.nycsubway.org//i33000/img_33809.jpg[/QUOTE]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/Paulo_2004/PHispano_111001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/Paulo_2004/PReal_111001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/Paulo_2004/EstMar_111005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/Paulo_2004/Merc_111001.jpg[/QUOTE]

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/trams/Porto/Eurotram/IMGP0040mp.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/trams/Porto/Eurotram/IMGP0046mp.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/trams/Porto/misc/IMGP0016mp.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/trams/Porto/Eurotram/IMGP0055mp.jpg

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/pt/trams/Porto/Eurotram/IMGP0045mp.jpg

http://mporto.planetaclix.pt/principal/estacoes/jardim_morro/DSC08107.jpg

http://mporto.planetaclix.pt/principal/estacoes/general_torres/DSC08065.jpg

http://www.metrodoporto.pt/files/827457/images/200591610455218476.jpg

http://mporto.planetaclix.pt/principal/estacoes/trindade/DSC08129.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/mp6.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/mp5.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/mp4.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/mp3.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/mp2.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/Paulo_2005/metrop.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/reflex_ssc2/Set051081.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/reflex_ssc2/Set051172.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/reflex_ssc2/Set051152.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/reflex_ssc2/Set051171.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/reflex_ssc2/Set051143.jpg

There are countless other European cities with similar systems, such as Milan, Athens, Lyon, Ruhrpot, Koeln, Stuttgart, etc... Toronto's system does not resemble these cities systems in any way, shape or form. ;)

I AM from Europe; Portugal to be more precise (but that's ok...) ;) :|

I've been to more countries than you can count, I have been to most major European cities (while you probably havn't left Misassauga... or however the fuck you spell it).

Yup, been all over Europe (literally every country and certainly every major city), born and raised there. Go back every few years. But then if you are from Europe, you've never been to Toronto. Or you simply know nothing about the design and planning of LRT. Rather than resort to stupid name calling I'll assess your argument (and you seem to have only one...)

Let me give you a small example of what a real tram system looks like. The system in the second city in my country, Oporto is what you can actually call a rapid transit or mass transit tram system.

It's all about having the right-of-way... which Toronto's ailing (read shitty) streetcar system does not have. ;)

Porto is a combination of Scarborough's (or Vancouver's) and Calgary's LRT. The city has no subway track whatsoever, which is why it has a hybrid role of trying to fill for a HRT and an LRT. A ROW is not necessary for an LRT--never has been (where the hell did you hear this is a requirment?), although the Spadina/Harbourfront do have general ROWs. Not all the cities in your list have a ROW for all their LRT track, and some not even close. It will depend on their nodal connections (especially to HRT). Yet, they would be considered mass transit. The mass transit system in the city needs to be frequent and have high capacity and good connection to other nodes of transport, which is precisely what Toronto's streetcars have.

And what's with Toronto's insults since day one? Look, anyone can point out that Montreal is by far the dirtiest major city in Canada, with actual organized crime problems. It can also be pointed out that Montreal's transit system itself lives on much larger subsidies and is thus generally more ineffective and inefficient than Toronto's. And these would be facts unlike your inaccurate Toronto bashing.

Porto is a combination of Scarborough's (or Vancouver's) and Calgary's LRT. The city has no subway track whatsoever, which is why it has a hybrid role of trying to fill for a HRT and an LRT. A ROW is not necessary for an LRT--never has been (where the hell did you hear this is a requirment?), although the Spadina/Harbourfront do have general ROWs. Not all the cities in your list have a ROW for all their LRT track, and some not even close. It will depend on their nodal connections (especially to HRT). Yet, they would be considered mass transit. The mass transit system in the city needs to be frequent and have high capacity and good connection to other nodes of transport, which is precisely what Toronto's streetcars have.

Who gives a fuck? The point is, Toronto's streetcars are glorified buses. They have no more capacity than a bus and have just as high a frequency as any major bus route. It is neither mass, nor rapid transit.

Montreal would build something akin to the Porto system along Av. du Parc. Something that could actually be considered mass transit.

And what's with Toronto's insults since day one? Look, anyone can point out that Montreal is by far the dirtiest major city in Canada, with actual organized crime problems. It can also be pointed out that Montreal's transit system itself lives on much larger subsidies and is thus generally more ineffective and inefficient than Toronto's. And these would be facts unlike your inaccurate Toronto bashing.

I never insulted Toronto, but I can play your game. We can all point out that Toronto is by far the most polluted city in Canada, we can also talk about how it's a haven for American-style sprawl and suburbia, making it one of the fastest sprawling cities in the continent. Perhaps we could discuss how its transit system has decresing ridership year after year, and continues to be bebehind Montreal in the same category? These are also facts...

Does this entrance to St.George Station still exist?
http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/5256/1963image30mp.jpg

Anyway, who knows what the YorkU stations might look like? They might look just as good as the Montreal ones or even better. I think the feds should concentrate on holding the TTC together before they [ever get to]spending on such niceties.


intact and in use, just as ugly. no flags though

Who gives a fuck? The point is, Toronto's streetcars are glorified buses. They have no more capacity than a bus and have just as high a frequency as any major bus route. It is neither mass, nor rapid transit.
Sorry to jump in on the conversation but that's just not true. Streetcars carry way more passengers than a bus. Heck, I'd bet a regular size streetcar carries well more than double the number of passengers of a bus.

Besides capacity differences, I can't stand taking a bus but taking a streetcar is quite enjoyable and fast; as long as it's outside the CBD.

Who gives a fuck? The point is, Toronto's streetcars are glorified buses. They have no more capacity than a bus and have just as high a frequency as any major bus route. It is neither mass, nor rapid transit.

Well this is where you're just wrong. The frequency of almost any streetcar is incomparable with bus routes, especially on ROWs, but regardless. On my route (St. Clair), frequency is every 4 1/2 minutes. A bus cannot by design have the same capacity. This is a USELESS thing to argue over. It's not even close. A streetcar addresses medium to high ridership. Anyone who remembers the Spadina bus over the streetcar we have now would know this. Hell, anyone who has taken the Queen bus during the track construction would know it's not even close.


Montreal would build something akin to the Porto system along Av. du Parc. Something that could actually be considered mass transit.

You refuse to listen. Streetcars ARE mass transit. They serve medium to high capacity routes and are used as priority feeder lines to the HRT, or for short haul trips on downtown routes where higher frequency and capacity than the bus could provide are needed. On a ROW, they have a more hybrid use. I'm sure whatever Montreal builds will be good for Montreal, but it's missing the point.


I never insulted Toronto, but I can play your game. We can all point out that Toronto is by far the most polluted city in Canada, we can also talk about how it's a haven for American-style sprawl and suburbia, making it one of the fastest sprawling cities in the continent. Perhaps we could discuss how its transit system has decresing ridership year after year, and continues to be bebehind Montreal in the same category? These are also facts...


Pollution is a fair point; we need to do more, although even if Toronto ceased all production, it would still get a fair bit from its neighbour down south. Can't choose our neighbours.

Montreal is a city with slow growth, and hence slower sprawl. Outside of the core, Montreal's sprawl is nothing to be proud of. Why do you pretend your crap doesn't stink?... BTW, sprawl in Toronto is nowhere NEAR 'fastest sprawling on the continent.' In fact, the measures to curb sprawl are in place, and the city is committed to densification (or do you think its construction boom is happening in Markham?).

Transit is not decreasing ridership year per year so this is NOT a fact. Transit has been increasing ridership year after year, but not yet to its 1988 peak. Montreal gets a lot more subsidies for its transit, so the fact that its per capita ridership is SLIGHTLY higher is hardly something to be so very proud of.

I AM from Europe; Portugal to be more precise (but that's ok...) ;) :|

I've been to more countries than you can count, I have been to most major European cities (while you probably havn't left Misassauga... or however the fuck you spell it).

Let me give you a small example of what a real tram system looks like. The system in the second city in my country, Oporto is what you can actually call a rapid transit or mass transit tram system.

It's all about having the right-of-way... which Toronto's ailing (read shitty) streetcar system does not have. ;)

There are countless other European cities with similar systems, such as Milan, Athens, Lyon, Ruhrpot, Koeln, Stuttgart, etc... Toronto's system does not resemble these cities systems in any way, shape or form. ;)


Again, if right-of-ways are so important, I could easily say then that Ottawa's busway is the same as Calgary or Vancouver's LRT. I could go on to argue that Ottawa has the most comprehensive and therefore best "urban mass transit system" in Canada.

But the fact is, Ottawa doesn't and no LRT, inluding Toronto's streetcar, is not in any way, shape or form like buses.

Well this is where you're just wrong. The frequency of almost any streetcar is incomparable with bus routes, especially on ROWs, but regardless. On my route (St. Clair), frequency is every 4 1/2 minutes. A bus cannot by design have the same capacity. This is a USELESS thing to argue over. It's not even close. A streetcar addresses medium to high ridership. Anyone who remembers the Spadina bus over the streetcar we have now would know this. Hell, anyone who has taken the Queen bus during the track construction would know it's not even close.

You refuse to listen. Streetcars ARE mass transit. They serve medium to high capacity routes and are used as priority feeder lines to the HRT, or for short haul trips on downtown routes where higher frequency and capacity than the bus could provide are needed. On a ROW, they have a more hybrid use. I'm sure whatever Montreal builds will be good for Montreal, but it's missing the point.

The 80 bus route on du Parc has a frequency of 7-10 minutes off peak, and 3-5 minutes during peak hours. Buses run back to back and have an exclussive lane during peak hours. This is why a high-capacity tram with ROW is being considered for this route. Like I said, a system like we see in many European cities, as opposed to the TO streetcar system which does not have ROW and which has cars with capacity similar to a bus'.

Montreal gets a lot more subsidies for its transit, so the fact that its per capita ridership is SLIGHTLY higher is hardly something to be so very proud of.

Any transit system is heavily subsidized. Subsidies say very little about a system's efficiency. Someone has to pay for it; in Toronto users pay a bigger share of the cost, in Montreal the governments take the bill... simple.

I agree. If the government felt it was time to serve those areas, it would not be hard at all to extend skytrain from Surrey to White Rock. I think that a good plan in the future would be to do that, then extend RAV from Richmond (down the 99 corridor), have a big station/bus loop to serve Ladner, Tsawassen and the ferry terminal and then continue the line down 99 and eventually join up in White Rock.

That is one of the worst ideas ever. Why would you build an expensive and long rapid transit line across the ALR to serve a small suburban area full of rich people who want to drive to work?

Skytrain shouldn't go any deeper into surrey then Newton or Guilford. But right now the focus for rapid transit (after RAV and the LRT) should be building the Broadway line and other lines through the city.

^ have you ever been to Europe, or are you just trying to stir crap up for no reason? It seems every non-European likes to say what a tram system is or is not. News flash: Toronto's streetcar system is a hell of a lot more similar to the European model than any other city on the continent.

IF you don't know what in the hell's name you're talking about, shut your mouth instead.

Iv been to Europe and Iv been to Toronto. The street cars are nice but they are nothing like the trams in Europe.

The street cars in TO are IMO basically gorified buses. Hardly a tram system.

. is that green line on the vancouver map the coquitlam center b-line or the proposed coquitlam lrt?

I think that the new LRT is going to take the same route as the b-line. The line is in the planning stages right now and will be finished before 2010 I believe.

Great maps! It's interesting how Montreal and Toronto have almost the same number of stations and trackage, but their focii are so different. Maybe the BRT in Ottawa, which is very extensive, and most of which is in its own ROW should be included too.

Who gives a fuck? The point is, Toronto's streetcars are glorified buses. They have no more capacity than a bus and have just as high a frequency as any major bus route. It is neither mass, nor rapid transit.

Montreal would build something akin to the Porto system along Av. du Parc. Something that could actually be considered mass transit.



I never insulted Toronto, but I can play your game. We can all point out that Toronto is by far the most polluted city in Canada, we can also talk about how it's a haven for American-style sprawl and suburbia, making it one of the fastest sprawling cities in the continent. Perhaps we could discuss how its transit system has decresing ridership year after year, and continues to be bebehind Montreal in the same category? These are also facts...

Sure they are, btw here's your Toronto streetcar row, about 3-4 lines in Toronto have their own seperate track from traffic. So what eh? Oh look we even got UNDERGROUND STATIONS *OMG*
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/streetcar-4108-06.jpg
Toronto's streetcars are more of a city symbol now, and they serve a great purpose. They're used extensively, are quiet, clean, good looking (I just love the little red rockets) There. You're just jealous Montreal doesn't have a streetcar system LOL

Well this is where you're just wrong. The frequency of almost any streetcar is incomparable with bus routes, especially on ROWs, but regardless. On my route (St. Clair), frequency is every 4 1/2 minutes. A bus cannot by design have the same capacity. This is a USELESS thing to argue over. It's not even close. A streetcar addresses medium to high ridership.
I don't know about that. Frequency of 4.5 minutes certainly isn’t impossible for a bus. For example, the 99 B-Line in Vancouver typically runs around that frequency for a lot of the day. The buses (carrying about 120 passengers each) are even scheduled 1 or 2 minutes apart during peak, which would give it a capacity of somewhere around 4000 passengers/hour according to my quick calculations. And it doesn't even have a real ROW.

Why are people saying Toronto has "no ROW" when infact it does.

http://img63.exs.cx/img63/2139/101_0165.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/gf_curtis/TTC%20and%20GO/4236-04-06-04-mt.jpg

"It's all about having the right-of-way... which Toronto's ailing (read shitty) streetcar system does not have." WTF are you talking about, no ROWs. Have you even SEEN Toronto? And provide some capacity statistics before you go shooting your mouth off.

Sure they are, btw here's your Toronto streetcar row, about 3-4 lines in Toronto have their own seperate track from traffic. So what eh? Oh look we even got UNDERGROUND STATIONS *OMG*
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/streetcar-4108-06.jpg
Toronto's streetcars are more of a city symbol now, and they serve a great purpose. They're used extensively, are quiet, clean, good looking (I just love the little red rockets) There. You're just jealous Montreal doesn't have a streetcar system LOL

I love the underground stations :D:D

I think the main source of the argument (other than really just loving your respective cities too much) is that some people consider LRT and streetcars to be the same thing, some don't. Personally I consider streetcars to run on streets. (Of course, I thought that's what trams were too). LRT has its own right of way and is basically an at-grade subway, with maybe less heavy-duty equipment. Of course there are hybrid systems as well. I think of the Toronto streetcars as streetcars.. at least the parts that run in streets. They can hold more than buses, but can still get tied up by traffic. LRT I'd think of as what Calgary and Ottawa have. Or the Scarborough RT.

"The street cars in TO are IMO basically gorified buses. Hardly a tram system."


Why don't we just drop that idea already...it's plainly incorrect. Toronto's streetcars are flat-out train sets....just like the new ones "some" cities have recently purchased (why do you think streetcars can, and do, get used on the the subway tracks). Having swoopy noses like they were bullet trains doesn't change what's under the slick-looking fiberglass skin. How many sections they have doesn't change that either.

Like any vehicle, there is a life-span....and Toronto's streetcars are not due for replacement yet, even though they pre-date the "new" ones (remember, back in the 1970's when they were ordered, these WERE modern looking)....we will just have to live without the swoopy looking "new" ones until they are. Other than maybe the lower floors, there's nothing different about them.

And there are plenty of the older streetcars in use in Europe. Persoanlly, I like the old ones...I miss the old PCC's.


But I don't see long multi-sectioned ones on many current routes, as the size of the vehicle is determined by the ridership and frequency needed. Why would you want fewer vehicles, picking up under-capacity crowds and leaving longer wait times, when you can have smaller vehicles with shorter wait times? I see the Spadina ROW as the exception to this rule, as it's a short route and has way too short frequencies (the streetcars are basically right behind each other all the time)....it could use the longer streetcars.


I mean, if you consider yourself a transit person, I don't see how you could run down the TTC's streetcar network...it just doesn't make any sense....it all sounds like sour grapes to me.









KGB

^^ (bluenoser) I think I'm on the same page. I always think of "streetcars" to be the North American term for "trams" (Europe). It's almost a silly idea to try and put vehicles into categories now. I think everyone has their own definition and what the characteristics are. They are what they are, and they may have a combination of characteristics. BTW, I love the TO streetcar. :) Vancouver has some itty bitty proposal for a streetcar route, but it doesn't compare with what Toronto has now.

Here's the actual TTC streetcar track map. I think the Long branch section is not too scale, as it extends too far west to otherwise be included on the map.



http://images.nycsubway.org/maps/ttc-cars-track-sm.gif






KGB

Who gives a fuck? The point is, Toronto's streetcars are glorified buses. They have no more capacity than a bus

bingo! you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know about that. Frequency of 4.5 minutes certainly isn’t impossible for a bus. For example, the 99 B-Line in Vancouver typically runs around that frequency for a lot of the day. The buses (carrying about 120 passengers each) are even scheduled 1 or 2 minutes apart during peak, which would give it a capacity of somewhere around 4000 passengers/hour according to my quick calculations. And it doesn't even have a real ROW.

B-Line's more for long distance though. It's more like the Finch, Sheppard Express Buses, the Red Rocket from Scarborough Town Centre to Don Mills Subway station, or the new York Region VIVA bus network. Personally, I don't find B-Line service that reliable. There might an indicator telling me how many minutes till the next bus, but most of the time I ride it, the bus was late. (!!)

I like the interior of the B-Lines more than the Toronto streetcars though. Those red rockets might be symbolic, but they're old, rusty and cramped. The screeching that comes from taking sharp turns (especially at the end stations - Queens Quay & Spadina) isn't pleasant either.

The screeching that comes from taking sharp turns (especially at the end stations - Queens Quay & Spadina) isn't pleasant either.
Strange. I used to leave at an intersection where two streetcar lines met and I found the sound comforting.

^^ It's the underground turns that are a pain (aka. the tunnel from Union to Queens Quay).. it especially sucks when people leave the windows open.

B-Line's more for long distance though. It's more like the Finch, Sheppard Express Buses, the Red Rocket from Scarborough Town Centre to Don Mills Subway station, or the new York Region VIVA bus network. Personally, I don't find B-Line service that reliable. There might an indicator telling me how many minutes till the next bus, but most of the time I ride it, the bus was late. (!!)
The 99 B-Line is frequent enough that it really doesn't need the indicator. Yes, the 98 is somewhat less frequent.

But anyway, I was disputing the "buses can't run high frequencies" argument, which really has nothing to do with the length of the route, in my opinion. If you meant short distances between stops, then there are several trolley bus routes in Vancouver that also run similar high frequencies, including 9, which even runs the same route as 99.

The 99 B-Line is frequent enough that it really doesn't need the indicator. Yes, the 98 is somewhat less frequent.

But anyway, I was disputing the "buses can't run high frequencies" argument, which really has nothing to do with the length of the route, in my opinion. If you meant short distances between stops, then there are several trolley bus routes in Vancouver that also run similar high frequencies, including 9, which even runs the same route as 99.

Yes, the trolley buses more closely resemble what the Toronto streetcar is.

Buses will work for high frequency, as long it has a ROW. The times I take 98 along Granville, and when that street is jammed, I'm stuck in a sea of traffic.

The qualm I have with Toronto's streetcars is the many "request" stops along the non-ROW routes (Queen, King and others), making it as slow as a regular bus. But then again, it's supposed to serve as mass public transit, not rapid transit.

The Vancouver trolleys run every couple minutes and have a ROW on Grandville street downtown.

First..........CRAZYJOEDA. When I was referring to a line in the FrazerValley I meant commuter rail like WCE using existing lines during peak hours.

Second....... AFFED. Nice that Portugal has its new line and you are hoping to get a new one as well. Its especially sweet when Porto's is built by German money thru EU transfers and Montreal's is built by Ontario money via Canadian transfers.

The qualm I have with Toronto's streetcars is the many "request" stops along the non-ROW routes (Queen, King and others), making it as slow as a regular bus. But then again, it's supposed to serve as mass public transit, not rapid transit.

Public transit and rapid transit can be the same thing.................

and Montreal's is built by Ontario money via Canadian transfers.

your disc is skipping... :sleepy:

"Yes, the trolley buses more closely resemble what the Toronto streetcar is."


Well, no....buses and streetcars are not similar "vehicles" at all. The "routes" on the other hand, is what the TTC streetcars share in common with buses.






"The qualm I have with Toronto's streetcars is the many "request" stops along the non-ROW routes (Queen, King and others), making it as slow as a regular bus. But then again, it's supposed to serve as mass public transit, not rapid transit."


But the whole point of the streetcar service in the first place is to have those "request stops". The TTC divides it's modes into specific types of service...it has to. We can't try to serve all those needs with hybrids like a Skytrain.

And no...it's not as slow as a bus....streetcars move more people faster than a bus on the same route does. Why is this still coming up? It's already a proven point.

The streetcar provides a highly intigrated LRT service for ridership beyond bus routes....I literally get on a streetcar outside my door...it drops me off litterally outside my door...I can't do this on something like a Skytrain.






KGB

I totally prefer streetcars. So much more comfortable than buses and are excellent workhorses as well.
I think something has to be clarrified here.
SkyTrain is AdvancedLRT and Calgary's is mass/rapis LRT but their uses are very different. SkyTrain best serves suburbanites and serves the city dwellers themselves poorly. Vancouver and Translink have this bizzare habit of building SkyTrain out in the suburbs first.
Calgary's CTrain is very different. The 3 lines started and radiate from the downtown core and then slowing have been built out out to the burbs like most other cities, hence CTrain's far highe percapita ridership.
All eventual 6 lines will go downtown. Calgary's CTrain also, unlike SkyTrain, serves inner city redidents extremly well with more innercity stations and freefare zone in the downtown core.

yeah, comparing SkyTrain and Toronto's streetcar is like comparing apples and oranges. and also, there are a lot more streetcar routes than there are with SkyTrain so that "drops me off literally outside my door" comment is kinda stupid. Streetcars have a lot more in common with buses than subways, and SkyTrain has a lot more in common with subways than streetcars and buses.

Except in Tor/Mon subways and CTrain serve inner city riders very well unlike SkyTrain which best suites Burnaby. Also SkyTrain only goes one way towards the eastern suburbs while Mon/Tor/Cal have lines going in 3 or more directions so many more riders can take advantage of it no matter what part of the city they are headed.
Also the largest universities in Tor/Mon/Cal are also served by Subway/Metro/CTrain unlike UBC.

Except in Tor/Mon subways and CTrain serve inner city riders very well unlike SkyTrain which best suites Burnaby. Also SkyTrain only goes one way towards the eastern suburbs while Mon/Tor/Cal have lines going in 3 or more directions so many more riders can take advantage of it no matter what part of the city they are headed.
Also the largest universities in Tor/Mon/Cal are also served by Subway/Metro/CTrain unlike UBC.

Toronto's currently serves University of Toronto: St. George campus (not the satelitte campuses in Scarborough or Mississauga, although Scarborough's has frequent bus services from the LRT stations) and Ryerson University. It will soon serve York University: Keele Campus with the proposed University line subway expasion.

Also... currently Edmonton's RT is being expanded to serve the University of Alberta. =D

Except in Tor/Mon subways and CTrain serve inner city riders very well unlike SkyTrain which best suites Burnaby. Also SkyTrain only goes one way towards the eastern suburbs while Mon/Tor/Cal have lines going in 3 or more directions so many more riders can take advantage of it no matter what part of the city they are headed.
Also the largest universities in Tor/Mon/Cal are also served by Subway/Metro/CTrain unlike UBC.


One word: GEOGRAPHY

TO/Mon/Cal are all relatively flat cities with their downtowns in the centre of the city.Vancouver's downtown is on a pennisula surrounded by 3 sides of ocean. This fact makes transit a little more challenging than other cities.

What other major Canadian city has to put up with the geographical restrictions that Vancouver does
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/map3.jpg

Also, do you think that skytrain should scale Burnaby mountain to SFU?
There is a station called Production Way on the millenium line and it sits conveniently at the base of B mountain, with buses running every couple of minutes up the mountain.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/production-way-university1.jpg

I agree that UBC should have light rail serving it but I think that is coming in the near future

"there are a lot more streetcar routes than there are with SkyTrain so that "drops me off literally outside my door" comment is kinda stupid."


Well, I was addressing the route service specifics...not comapring it with a Skytrain, which in terms of route service, i agree...the two have nothing in common.








"Streetcars have a lot more in common with buses than subways, and SkyTrain has a lot more in common with subways than streetcars and buses."


Again...in terms of route service, i would agree streetcar and bus are similar. But in terms of vehicle types, streetcars are just smaller train sets that happen to travel on the street.

In terms of Skytrains and the TTC subway, I see less similarity, as T1 trains are significantly different vehicles, but the real difference is in route service....the TTC subway serves high density inner-city routes, which travels directly under main streets, have stations close together, and transfer with every surface route. Where there might be more similarity, is on the outer edges of the Bloor-Danforth line, where it's routes starts behaving a bit like Skytrain, do to it's similar (but more dense) post-war suburban-style development.








"TO/Mon/Cal are all relatively flat cities with their downtowns in the centre of the city."


Actually, the city-proper of Vancouver is much flatter than Toronto. And downtown Toronto is not in the centre of the city at all....it's at the far southern part of the city...water on one side...large ravine on another. People in Toronto have to travel longer distances to get to downtown than people in Vancouver. It's just that downtown Toronto has better public transit coverage.








KGB

It's just that downtown Toronto has better public transit coverage.
It would be so nice to just once here you say that something in X city is better than what Toronto has lol. But I guess Toronto just has the best of everything.

(note: as a pre-emptive, I'm not bashing Toronto. There just must be something somewhere that's better than its counterpart in Toronto.)

"It would be so nice to just once here you say that something in X city is better than what Toronto has lol. "


Implying that i think anything and everything is better in Toronto than anywhere else is a shoddy, and incorrect statement to counter with. The topic is public transit, and downtown Toronto does have better transit coverage. If you disagree with that, then let's here it....I speak the truth....save the whining.






KGB

"TO/Mon/Cal are all relatively flat cities with their downtowns in the centre of the city."

Actually, the city-proper of Vancouver is much flatter than Toronto. And downtown Toronto is not in the centre of the city at all....it's at the far southern part of the city...water on one side...large ravine on another. People in Toronto have to travel longer distances to get to downtown than people in Vancouver. It's just that downtown Toronto has better public transit coverage.


uh huh. whoopeedo, water on one side and a "large ravine" on the other side. Vancouver's downtown is on the northwestern tip of the region on a peninsuala, with water on all three sides (a bay, one large inlet, and one small inlet. that's almost an island city centre.



looking at these maps, the city that starts with a T clearly has much less geographical obstacles:
http://www.247apartments.com/images/toronto-map.gif
http://www.ambassadorbb.com/vanmap.jpg


The whole GVRD is surrounded by water and within it, it's divided by water ............ very much unlike Toronto.

Also SkyTrain only goes one way towards the eastern suburbs while Mon/Tor/Cal have lines going in 3 or more directions so many more riders can take advantage of it no matter what part of the city they are headed.
Going south will be served by RAV by 2009 and going north is already served by SeaBus (would you think it'll be cost effective to build a 3.5km bridge or underwater tunnel for Skytrain?)... going west from downtown there is a huge body of water... or if you're talking about UBC, there's currently a rapid bus and eventually a rapid transit system will be built (just like Calgary's 301). Planning for the line will begin in 2006 and construction would very likely to start by 2010.

Well, no.... buses and streetcars are not similar "vehicles" at all.
Electric-powered by overhead wires... Check!
Single, human driver... Check!
Similar size... Check!
Similar speed... Check!
Similar vehicle capacity... Check!
Similar passenger amenities... Check!
Same number of doorways... Check!
Wheeled vehicles that routinely run in street traffic... Check!
Same purpose... Check!

KGB proven wrong or at least grossly exaggerating once again... Check!

Even if Translink tripled its SkyTrain routage it will never have the ridership levels of the Tor/Mon.
I think much of it is cultural. Vancouver is spread out like L.A. except the downtown.
Vancouverites still see transit as a poor man's option. Something you take as a total last resort. Vancouver doesn't have the urbanity that Tor/Mon do and probably never will. The wealthy will not take transit in Van unlike eastern cities which results in lower ridership levels.
Even in Calgary and Ottawa they are less prone to this mentality.
Its always great to have better service but its the car dependent culture of Vancouverites that is Translink biggest obstacle to overcome.

Even if Translink tripled its SkyTrain routage it will never have the ridership levels of the Tor/Mon.
I think much of it is cultural. Vancouver is spread out like L.A. except the downtown.
Vancouverites still see transit as a poor man's option. Something you take as a total last resort. Vancouver doesn't have the urbanity that Tor/Mon do and probably never will. The wealthy will not take transit in Van unlike eastern cities which results in lower ridership levels.
Even in Calgary and Ottawa they are less prone to this mentality.
Its always great to have better service but its the car dependent culture of Vancouverites that is Translink biggest obstacle to overcome.

Have you ever lived in Vancouver? I mean, the daily commuters I used to ride with on the Skytrain were a mix of classes from high to low. Vancouver doesn't have the urbanity, but that's because it's a younger and smaller city, and these types of developments take time to grow and mature.

If Metrotown and New Westminster is any indication, the regional town centres outside of downtown are densifying. Also, if Vancouver is so car friendly, why is the widest highway a mere 3 lanes each way? Why is the highway system all disjointed? Why are there so many traffic bottlenecks?

Yet again, your misinformed critique of Vancouver makes you sound like a broken record.

a "large ravine" on the other side You obviously haven't been to or seen the ravine. And those mountains aren't even in the city. The city of New York seems to have done fine even with geographical obstacles, and they have subways linking Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn.

The city of New York seems to have done fine even with geographical obstacles, and they have subways linking Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn.
Of course they can spend a couple billion dollars to dig a tunnel across Burrard Inlet, and spend 10 billion more to build a tunnel linking West Van with UBC. But then, Vancouver is not New York, does the population in Vancouver actually large enough for such project?

rt 0891,

Yes I lived in Van for 10 years til 2001 and still go there every month to visit family and always take transit.
I stand by what I said. There is a real cultural difference much like the US.
Vancouver is more culturally tied to L.A. not SanFran and the transit numbers bare this out.
Actually there are more cars percapita in GVRD than the city of L.A. with 3.9mil.
L.A. is developing a very extensive subway/lrt system which is growing very fast but although being a very larger city will never come close to NYC transit numbers.

Yes, there are different classes who use transit like every city but compared to Tor/Mon or even Cal/Ott the passengers on SkyTrain especially are decidedly blue collar. In Vancouver white collar doesn't do transit.

Of course they can spend a couple billion dollars to dig a tunnel across Burrard Inlet, and spend 10 billion more to build a tunnel linking West Van with UBC. But then, Vancouver is not New York, does the population in Vancouver actually large enough for such project? I guess you'll have to wait until its critical that the region be seamlessly connected. Even the Don Valley was bridged, with a lower deck for future subway in 1919, when the city's population had not even reached 500,000.

In Vancouver white collar doesn't do transit.

So I guess my family and all my friends who used transit were the exception?

Yes I lived in Van for 10 years til 2001 and still go there every month to visit family and always take transit.
I stand by what I said. There is a real cultural difference much like the US.
Vancouver is more culturally tied to L.A. not SanFran and the transit numbers bare this out.
Actually there are more cars percapita in GVRD than the city of L.A. with 3.9mil.
L.A. is developing a very extensive subway/lrt system which is growing very fast but although being a very larger city will never come close to NYC transit numbers.

Yes, there are different classes who use transit like every city but compared to Tor/Mon or even Cal/Ott the passengers on SkyTrain especially are decidedly blue collar. In Vancouver white collar doesn't do transit.

I agree somewhat that Vancouver's culture is similiar to LA, but one clear difference between the two cities is the roads and transportation infrastructure. Until I see a highway infrastructure that's up to grade to LA, where point A to point B doesn't really on travel on city-roads, I don't really see how Vancouver's car culture can be compared to LA.

I don't think the fact that highway 1 is small compared to other cities' major highways means that Vancouver isn't car friendly. If we were forced to believe this line of reasoning, it would mean toronto is very car friendly, given that its highways are many times as wide. And keep in mind the word "highway" is used almost arbitrarily in B.C.; what is the average traffic speed on Granville or SE Marine?

Inexplicable! Mostly blue collar workers ride skytrain? That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the route of the skytrain. Oh wait; yes it could (and does). There is a certain stigma attached to public transit (most certainly skytrain) that is hard to shake. News stories about people being murdered, or robbed by preteens, near skytrain stations surely don't help.

That said, I don't believe that people are so stupid as to want to drive without regard for how long it will take. That people in the west will always drive even if it takes longer defies reason and common sense.

Electric-powered by overhead wires... Check!
Single, human driver... Check!
Similar size... Check!
Similar speed... Check!
Similar vehicle capacity... Check!
Similar passenger amenities... Check!
Same number of doorways... Check!
Wheeled vehicles that routinely run in street traffic... Check!
Same purpose... Check!

KGB proven wrong or at least grossly exaggerating once again... Check!


Similar vehicle capacity: Wrong! The capacity of a single TTC non-articulated bus has 55-70 passenger max. An TTC articulated bus has a capacity of 113 and a crush load of 141. On the otherhand, the capacity of CLRV streetcar is 102/132 and an ALRV has a capacity of 155/205.

That is just simply the capacity difference of a single vehicle, streetcar routes offer a much higher capacity than bus routes. I forget where on the city website that is but I will look for it in a bit.

"Similar passenger amenities... Check!" I don't even know why that's a point. And one wonders why they would run LRT on that new green line in vancouver instead of trolly buses. Maybe their transit system is stupid - NO - OBVIOUSLY there's a difference.

rt 0891.....
I totally agree with you in that Vancouverites are not as car dependent as L.A. folks and never will be just as comparing Canadians to Americans in this way. Its a cultural thing. At the same time so is Van compared to Tor/Mon.
Look at Ottawa. Its has percapita ridership higher than Vancouver but is less than half the size and doesn'r have rail except for that 6km diesel train which isn't really like true rapid transit in that it doesn't come near as frequently to be called it. Parts of the line only have one rail.
Ottawa's rapid transit is the bus-only Transitway. While a good system it is still just a bus system and loud, bumpy, diesel polluting one to boot.
You said it yourself culture does reflect transit ridership levels whether its Van vs L.A. or Van vs Tor/Mon or Ott/Cal

do you know what i find completely amazing?
my friend whom i am going to university with is quite well off, and when i mean quite well off... when she got into university her father bought her a brand new Porshe 968 as a present.... however when she said she could not use that car as an "everyday" car her father bought her a mazda 3. Yet does she drive everyday to go downtown to university (she and i both live in northern scarborough steeles/midland area)? NO she does not, in fact she takes the bus to Midland Station and then the RT to Kennedy and then the Bloor Line downtown. Does she take transit downtown because she is scared to drive downtown or that she cannot find a space? NO... because if she wanted to drive, her father owns a part of Yorkville and has plenty of space for her to park in. Her father btw also takes the TTC to go downtown to work everyday and so does her mother. I am not as well off as her, yet i too take the TTC downtown. I guess its an urban attitude we all grew up with... that transit is there for us to use and not ignore because of stupid stereotypes or stigmas.

Oh yeah.. her father said once she gets into law school, there is another car coming her way.... (but will she use it? hmmm... her porshe 968 rite now is sitting in the garage.. less than 100clicks on it.. i hope she sells it soon to pay for a metropass, since she's still using tickets =_='') GO TTC GO!

[EDIT]Huh?

Hey zonie...that comparison was pretty absurd...I could use that kind of reasoning to compare a a mini-van to a streetcar. But I'll pretend you were serious and indulge you.


"Electric-powered by overhead wires... Check! "

How does what they run on matter...is a motorcycle and a bus the same thing because they both run on petrol? The streetcar also has 4 motors (same style as on the subway cars).



"Single, human driver... Check! "

As opposed to what....all those vehicles that are driven by multiple or non-human drivers???? LOL




"Similar size... Check! "

hmmm...the streetcar weighs in at 81,000 lbs empty ( 113,000 lbs full), and is 76 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. The trolly bus is a pipsqueak compared to this.

http://www.lightrail.com/carspecpages/toronto/alrvdetails.gif





"Similar speed... Check! "

Well, the streetcar will move faster down the route compared to a bus in mixed traffic. Other than that, it can run at 80km/hr...so I guess it has the same speed as anything that runs between 0 and 80km/hr.





"Similar vehicle capacity... Check!"

The streetcar carries 205 passengers...the trolly bus???





"Similar passenger amenities... Check! "

Which is what...the same thing on any transit vehicle???? seats and windows LOL





"Same number of doorways... Check! "

Another bizare one...but the ALRV has 3 sets of double doors...but then, so does a mini-van.







"Wheeled vehicles that routinely run in street traffic... Check! "

The streetcar does not run on "tires" they run on train trucks...on train tracks....probably because it IS a train. (you might notice the lack of a steering wheel). You can plunk a streetcar on the subway line and run it (obviously modifying it to receive power from the third rail as opposed to overhead) Indeed, streetcars have been retired to work as maintanence vehicles on the subway system.





"Same purpose... Check! "

All transit vehicles have the same purpose...to transport people.

What's next...they are both designed to run on earth's gravity???








"KGB proven wrong or at least grossly exaggerating once again... Check! "

You haven't done it now...or any time in the past...so this one is just bogus. LOL







KGB

Similar vehicle capacity: Wrong! The capacity of a single TTC non-articulated bus has 55-70 passenger max. An TTC articulated bus has a capacity of 113 and a crush load of 141. On the otherhand, the capacity of CLRV streetcar is 102/132 and an ALRV has a capacity of 155/205.

That is just simply the capacity difference of a single vehicle, streetcar routes offer a much higher capacity than bus routes. I forget where on the city website that is but I will look for it in a bit.
I am comparing non-articulated versions. Although articulated trolleys are coming in Vancouver

The new trolleys arriving in Vancouver have a capacity of something like 80 passengers each, which is supposedly slightly down from the current trolleys due to more seating or something. I’m not counting crush load because you can crush into a bus too. The difference between 80-something and 102 simply isn’t so great that you couldn’t call the capacities similar.

Also, KGB and I were talking about vehicles, not routes, in this case. So feel free to provide us with some interesting info, but it doesn’t help your argument against me.

To KGB: Your claim that trolleys and streetcars are not **similar** at all is extremely bold, absurd, and just plain wrong, as I’ve painstakingly shown you. In fact, they are actually the same in some ways. Also, yes, minivans are similar too in some ways, but much less so.

I see that you've disputed much of what I've said, mostly where I myself said "similar". Obviously, there's a bit of subjectivity, but most people would probably agree at least some of the things I called similar are similar. And I just said "wheeled" not "rubber-tired wheels". Get it?

Streetcars are LRT, I am not why you are still disputing this. It is wider and longer and therefore has higher capacity than bus, just like other LRT, and runs on tracks just like other LRT at a similar speed. Yes, it has wheels, but all LRT does too so that is a kind of stupid thing to point out. Put a streetcar in a tunnel or elevated section and it can do the same thing as in other LRT systems. And many other LRT system operate in on the street just like in Toronto.

The only thing streetcar has in common with trolley bus is that it runs on electricity. A forty foot (regular) bus only has capacity of around 55-60 people. 80 people on one low-floor 40 foot bus is impossible, but it might be possible on a high-floor or if the bus was full of small children or midgets, but even that is stretching. Articulated (60 foot) buses have capacity of around 75-100 people, only half that of articulated streetcars which can attributed to the fact that they are 16 feet shorter and also because they are not as wide.

The fact is, Toronto's streetcars are LRT and therefore Toronto has the most extensive LRT system in Canada and one of the most extensive in North America.

I don't know why you Torontonians are being so uptight about this.

All I said were trolley buses and streetcars in fact do share a number of similar characteristics, since KGB said they were not similar at all. I never said they were exactly the same.

A forty foot (regular) bus only has capacity of around 55-60 people. 80 people on one low-floor 40 foot bus is impossible, but it might be possible on a high-floor or if the bus was full of small children or midgets, but even that is stretching. Articulated (60 foot) buses have capacity of around 75-100 people, only half that of articulated streetcars which can attributed to the fact that they are 16 feet shorter and also because they are not as wide.
A low-floor bus would have no problem fitting 80 people. Just last week I've been in a low-floor bus with approx. 78 people, and about 90% of the people there carry backpacks - some quite large. The artics would have no problem carrying at least 120 people.

god damnit, this is soooooo anoying, every damn thread about transit becomes one about if Toront's tramways are trameways or not... issssh.

"To KGB: Your claim that trolleys and streetcars are not **similar** at all is extremely bold, absurd, and just plain wrong, as I’ve painstakingly shown you."


"Painstakingly" ????? What...that streetcars and electric buses share similarities like having doors and windows...and have breathable air??? stuff like that??? LOL Yea, that's real thesis material there.






"I see that you've disputed much of what I've said"


No...I think I disputed everything you said. To call my information absurd and plain wrong means you either didn't read it...or didn't understand it. Those were hard facts...show me something wrong.







"most people would probably agree at least some of the things I called similar are similar. "


Yes...even I agree that some of the things you mentioned would be called "similar"....only they are absurd, and make almost any vehicle similar....such as having a driver, seats and windows, carry passengers, etc. So extremely vague, as to render it useless in terms of comparison.








"And I just said "wheeled" not "rubber-tired wheels". Get it? "


But if we want to look at it in terms of what vehicles are "similar", then the streetcar isn't just similar to subways...they are basically identical...same motors, same train trucks, same gauge, running on the same train tracks...supplied by the same manufacturers as the heavy rail subway cars.

So using your own criteria (the wheels they run on), then streetcars and heavy rail subway cars are far more similar than streetcars and electric buses.






KGB

"Even if Translink tripled its SkyTrain routage it will never have the ridership levels of the Tor/Mon.
I think much of it is cultural. Vancouver is spread out like L.A. except the downtown.
Vancouverites still see transit as a poor man's option. Something you take as a total last resort. Vancouver doesn't have the urbanity that Tor/Mon do and probably never will. The wealthy will not take transit in Van unlike eastern cities which results in lower ridership levels.
Even in Calgary and Ottawa they are less prone to this mentality.
Its always great to have better service but its the car dependent culture of Vancouverites that is Translink biggest obstacle to overcome."


Its all about how the city is built for transportation, thats what equals your ridership. Even though Montreal is not more urban than Vancouver, i understand your dim witted, after being on this site for a little time i have seen you make bias and foolish comments, and not thinking things before you start typing.

Examples:

You commenting on housing in downtown Vancouver:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=225958&page=2

You commenting on nightlife in Vancouver:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=246264&page=2&pp=20
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=209032

Just a few of so many.




Anyhow this is about transportation, and like i was saying it depends on how the city center or region is built for transportation and employment areas. Vancouver jobs are spread out all over the region, skytrain does not go to all areas, it goes to the main ones. Toronto and Montreal and Calgary have much more employment centralized therefor they have higher riderships on their transit lines. If someone from Vancouver works in Surrey, they are going to take their car, because most likely they wont want to get off the skytrain at one of the stations in Surrey and take a "bus" to where ever they work. Someone from Richmond at the moment is going to take their car if they work downtown, the same goe's for Maple Ridge and the cities that surround it. Its true in a way when people say Vancouver is more towards the vehicle, i read somewhere that a car is registered every 23 seconds in the Lower Mainland. The only thing that matters is the more cars Vancouver gets off the roads the better, no body gives a flying shit and is not going to lose sleep over whether Vancouver will catch those cities in ridership. LA is never going to catch New York in ridership. It all depends on how the city is built.

"To KGB: Your claim that trolleys and streetcars are not **similar** at all is extremely bold, absurd, and just plain wrong, as I’ve painstakingly shown you."


"Painstakingly" ????? What...that streetcars and electric buses share similarities like having doors and windows...and have breathable air??? stuff like that??? LOL Yea, that's real thesis material there.


KGB

LOL.... best put down ever. Zonie, please shut up now.

I will agree with you on one point Superman and that is Vancouver has employment centres scattered all over the damn place instead of mainly downtown.
Thats also known as urban planning something Vancouver has only recently started to realise you need.
Vancouver was the last of Canada's big 6 cities to get mass/rapid transit eventhough it is twice the size of Calgary/Ottawa/Edmonton. It has allowed officer towers all over the damn place so commuter rail is less of an option.
It allowed ever area of Vancouver south of Broadway to be single family.
It did not put aside any land for potential transit lines. It doesn't have one of its 2 universities downtown or even remotely close to downtown { please don't refer to CityUniversity as a major school}. Even translink spreads it tower in the burbs. It is located in Surrey which is like locating the TTC centre in Newmarket.
The only main drag that Vancouver has that can be accessed from the core without crossing a bridge { like Ste.Chatherines/Yonge} is Hastings. That could have been made a main subway corridor 40 years ago while it was still the city's main shopping mecca and main drag into total disrepair so no high density street could develope on it. Instead Vancouver has had to go to point to point travel for SkyTrain, hence lower ridership.
The facts speak for themselves. CTrain is not as long, serves a city half the size, was built for one third the price of SkyTrain and yet gets the same ridership level. It spent a king's ransom for the SkyTrain bridge to Surrey and has only resulted in an additional 20,000 passengers a day. An obscene was of funds.

Streetcars operate on streets like buses do, so they are forced to operate in mixed traffic (unlike subways). You could argue that you can run a streetcar in a tunnel or an ROW, but personally I would call that LRT, not a streetcar, so I dunno. That being said, streetcars generally would have a lower operating speed than a subway, which doesn't have to deal with traffic. Their speed, which many would consider an integral characteristic, is more similar to that of a bus. I don't understand why buses would be slower, but I'll accept it as a fact. Is it maybe that streetcars are more intimidating and cars stay out of the way? I also think the fact that they both run on electricity (though most subways do as well) is significant, since it's more environmentally friendly than gasoline and diesel. Maybe in the near future it will be much cheaper as well.

So ok. Can we just say that streetcars fit in somewhere between trolleybuses and rapid rail and get on with our lives?

It spent a king's ransom for the SkyTrain bridge to Surrey and has only resulted in an additional 20,000 passengers a day. An obscene was of funds.
I don't see a problem with Skybridge. It currently takes 4300 passengers per hour during peak in the peak direction, or roughly 7000 passengers per hour bothway. Image if even half of the people drive if Skytrain was not built, all these extra 3500 cars/hour (or 1 car/sec; 1 car/1.5 sec in peak direction) will have to use Patullo Bridge, and the bridge sure can't take this extra traffic and 2 lanes has to be added. And what's the result? A new bridge would have been built for these extra traffic. And since it will be wider and have more lanes, it'll sure cost more.

The facts speak for themselves. CTrain is not as long, serves a city half the size, was built for one third the price of SkyTrain and yet gets the same ridership level. It spent a king's ransom for the SkyTrain bridge to Surrey and has only resulted in an additional 20,000 passengers a day. An obscene was of funds.[/QUOTE]


It's true that Vancouver probably should have built rapid transit earlier in it's history. You can't deny, however that Skytrain has not drastically changed Vancouver for the better since it was built 20 years ago.For example, just look at all the transit friendly, high density housing that has and is being built within walking distance (less then ten minutes away on foot) of skytrain stations. Between Joyce, Patterson,Metrotown, Edmonds , New West, Gateway, Surrey Central and King George stations alone there is roughly 23 towers over 20 stories under construction . Metrotown's tallest tower underconstruction sold out in 1 month. The Central City condos sold out in 7 hours. Park 360 by Edmonds is more than 80% sold and the building is still at the foundation. Highgate Village close to Edmonds as well is selling the last tower of its four tower 900 unit project with only the first tower completed.
Azure next to New West station sold out its first tower in its pre-selling phase , and has sold 50 % of its second tower in just over a month of public sales. This doesn't even include all the construction around the Millenium Line stations. Clearly Vancouverites want to live near skytrain, as this is were the majority of condos is being built outside the downtown core. In part because of this demand, a 1bedroom condo in Burnaby , for example, goes for no less then $220,000. For that amount of money you could buy a townhouse in Maple Ridge.

Streetcars operate on streets like buses do, so they are forced to operate in mixed traffic (unlike subways). You could argue that you can run a streetcar in a tunnel or an ROW, but personally I would call that LRT, not a streetcar, so I dunno. That being said, streetcars generally would have a lower operating speed than a subway, which doesn't have to deal with traffic. Their speed, which many would consider an integral characteristic, is more similar to that of a bus. I don't understand why buses would be slower, but I'll accept it as a fact. Is it maybe that streetcars are more intimidating and cars stay out of the way? I also think the fact that they both run on electricity (though most subways do as well) is significant, since it's more environmentally friendly than gasoline and diesel. Maybe in the near future it will be much cheaper as well.

So ok. Can we just say that streetcars fit in somewhere between trolleybuses and rapid rail and get on with our lives?

I don't know, have you ever heard of a streetcar ROW? It means the streetcar doesn't have to mingle with other traffic, except at junctions. And BTW, a streetcar is LRT. A streetcar can operate at 80km/h, and a subway train can operate at 80km/h. There are a lot more stops in between streetcar ROW lines than on subway lines though.

I am comparing non-articulated versions. Although articulated trolleys are coming in Vancouver

The new trolleys arriving in Vancouver have a capacity of something like 80 passengers each, which is supposedly slightly down from the current trolleys due to more seating or something. I’m not counting crush load because you can crush into a bus too. The difference between 80-something and 102 simply isn’t so great that you couldn’t call the capacities similar.

Also, KGB and I were talking about vehicles, not routes, in this case. So feel free to provide us with some interesting info, but it doesn’t help your argument against me.

To KGB: Your claim that trolleys and streetcars are not **similar** at all is extremely bold, absurd, and just plain wrong, as I’ve painstakingly shown you. In fact, they are actually the same in some ways. Also, yes, minivans are similar too in some ways, but much less so.

I see that you've disputed much of what I've said, mostly where I myself said "similar". Obviously, there's a bit of subjectivity, but most people would probably agree at least some of the things I called similar are similar. And I just said "wheeled" not "rubber-tired wheels". Get it?

There is still a big difference between Aticulated Buses and ALRVs but I care not to carry on this arguement.

As for buses vs. streetcars that are not on their own ROW, streetcars carry a MUCH higher ridership. I saw an online doc a short time ago listing the stats but cannot remember where. It was posted here at SSC so if anybody knows what I'm talking about, please PM me.

Even though Montreal is not more urban than Vancouver, ~ i understand your dim witted, ~ after being on this site for a little time i have seen you make bias and foolish comments, and not thinking things before you start typing.If you don't know how to criticize someone in writing, maybe you should just swear.

And BTW, a streetcar is LRT.
What I mean, though, and this has been said by a few people a few times in this thread, is that I consider them to be two somewhat distinct things eg. Streetcars = in streets, LRT = higher speeds in its own ROW. What the original argument was (I think) was concerning Toronto's downtown streetcars which operate in mixed traffic.

What I mean, though, and this has been said by a few people a few times in this thread, is that I consider them to be two somewhat distinct things eg. Streetcars = in streets, LRT = higher speeds in its own ROW. What the original argument was (I think) was concerning Toronto's downtown streetcars which operate in mixed traffic.

Alot of TO streetcar routes do have their own ROW's though... Spadina, Queens Quay (which a large portion is entirely underground, with it's own dedicated underground station), parts of the Queen line along the Queensway, parts of the St. Clair line....

you be the judge

^
LRT in N.A. ussually refers to mass/rapid transit like CTrain/DART. Technically a streetcar but in N.A. it really does have a different conatation.

Saying streetcars are just glorified buses is like saying a helicopter is the same as a 747. I can't beleive some people don't get that.

That said, it would be far too expensive for cities with no streetcars to start developing a large system now like TTC's RedRockets. Too expensive to buy the new cars, tear up the roads and put in rail lines, in some cases overhead electric lines.
I have always found a streetcar far more desirable than a bus.
That said, if buses are the only real option I give kudos to Translink for maintaining their trolley system. They are quieter, have faster pickup { which is important on Vancouver hills} and most importantly non-polluting as opposed to a standard diesel.

"Painstakingly" ????? What...that streetcars and electric buses share similarities like having doors and windows...and have breathable air??? stuff like that??? LOL Yea, that's real thesis material there.
Sorry, this isn't supposed to be some grand thesis, though it appears it is to you. Yes, painstakingly was an exaggeration, but not nearly one on your level.

To call my information absurd and plain wrong means you either didn't read it...
Did I even say your information was wrong? No, I said your initial claim that trolley buses are not similar to streetcars at all was wrong. It's you who should read line-by-line. Don't let the Torontohol blind you.

So using your own criteria (the wheels they run on), then streetcars and heavy rail subway cars are far more similar than streetcars and electric buses.
Good job, I think you're finally getting it! :okay: (edit: just to clarify, we're only talking about the wheels here, right? but let's leave this one, and not get sidetracked, ok?)

Just to be sure, I'll put it this way: "similar" and "same" are similar words, but not the same. If you're still confused, try looking them up at dictionary.com.

Subways, LRT's, streetcars and buses are all forms of alternative transportation. They serve a variety of purposes from long-distance travel to inter-neighbourhood transportation. Whether these use a designated or non-designated ROW, they serve the main purpose of getting people from point A to B and keep cars off the road.

Putting streetcars on ROWS in Toronto doesn't really decrease trips times that much and is not the main reason for having them...what it does is provide consistant headways, which makes both the TTC's and riders much happier. Short-turning streetcars becomes a nightmare for the TTC, and we all know how maddening it is when you end up with large gaps between bunched-up streetcars.







KGB