News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

I think it would eat into fare revenues pretty sharply, but I'd be interested to see a study. I bet they introduce timed transfers at the same time they inevitably introduce some kind of fare-by-distance scheme.
 
Fare By Distance

I think it would eat into fare revenues pretty sharply, but I'd be interested to see a study. I bet they introduce timed transfers at the same time they inevitably introduce some kind of fare-by-distance scheme.

I think it's time to seriously look into fare-by-distance especially since the majority of the lines proposed by previous subway studies and transit city are in the suburbs meaning they are serving longer distances. This would probably help the cost recovery for these suburbia lines alot.
 
I think it's time to seriously look into fare-by-distance especially since the majority of the lines proposed by previous subway studies and transit city are in the suburbs meaning they are serving longer distances. This would probably help the cost recovery for these suburbia lines alot.

I also support fare-by-distance because it would work better with integrating transit services. Imagine a common GTA fare scheme where it doesn't matter whether you take the TTC, GO, Viva, YRT, MT, DRT, BT or any combination of them. If you go from point A to B, it costs the same regardless of mode. The Netherlands, for example have a common country-wide fare system for trains, trams and buses.
 
I think it would eat into fare revenues pretty sharply, but I'd be interested to see a study. I bet they introduce timed transfers at the same time they inevitably introduce some kind of fare-by-distance scheme.

The 512 St. Clair is still on a timed-transfer since during and now after the construction. They haven't ended it as yet. That might be the study the TTC is using.
 
Are they the legacy (TTC gauge) or TC (standard gauge) LRVs? I'm too lazy to read the PDF.
 
The 512 St. Clair is still on a timed-transfer since during and now after the construction. They haven't ended it as yet. That might be the study the TTC is using.

Ridership is up on the 512, but it's also due to the end of construction and the new ROW. A study would be more effective on a route with more stable ridership.
 
I think last fare increase timed transferred were estimated to cost about 20 million (going by the fact that this fare increase is supposed to increase revenue by $24 million, that'd be just south of 9 cents/fare).
 
Do people really expect the same or better service with buses than with streetcars? There is a proposal to cutback on several bus routes, one of them is the 74 Mt. Pleasant bus. No service after 7:00 p.m., every day.

Boy, did that route ever go downhill.

It used to be the east leg of the St. Clair streetcar. It even had 24-hour service from the St. Clair streetcar.

When it was split into a separate Mt. Pleasant streetcar (east of Yonge Street) in 1975, the service ran from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m.. However after 1 a.m., there was night service which was provided by the St. Clair streetcar route.

That lasted until 1976, when it was replaced by the 76 Mt. Pleasant trolley bus. Eventually, all the trolley buses were replaced with what we have now, hybrid or diesel buses. People didn't like the change, they just ignored the buses and went elsewhere.

Now the TTC wants to cutback the 74 Mt. Pleasant to no service after 7 pm, every day.

From 24-hour service to no service after 7:00 pm. Shows what happens when you replace streetcars with buses. Exactly what happened to the buses routes in other North American cities when they replaced their streetcars with buses, ridership goes down.

Pitiful.
 
I'm not exactly sure why we're having this debate any more. There is no threat of Rob Ford replacing existing streetcar routes with buses, and most people - myself included - acknowledge that removing streetcars on existing lines would be stupid because:

a) the TTC has nearly finished a major trackwork rehabilitation program that will guarantee tracks will not be replaced for another 30 years. This means that the costs of operating fixed infrastructure will probably be the lowest they've ever been for at least a few decades.
b) streetcars are marginally cheaper to operate than buses due to their increased capacity, and the reason why they seem "unreliable" is because of the narrow, urban streetlayout and insistence on on-street parking. None of this would be any different if the same street had buses.

That said, it makes no sense to build new lines because the costs of building new streetcar lines is actually quite exorbitant and the ridership benefits hardly justify those costs. To use a somewhat back-of-the-envelope calculation, would you spend $200M to build a streetcar line from scratch, or would you just buy about 15 articulated buses and institute POP boarding for (and I think I'm wildly overestimating the costs here) $20M? Even if we assume that the cost of bus replacement and operation is twice as much per rider as a streetcar, you would still have to justify ridership going up 5X to support the streetcar. Has any streetcar that replaced a bus service (eg. Spadina) ever generated 5 times as much ridership as the original bus. No. And that will never be the case.

So, in conclusion, streetcar lines are a great thing to have, but it makes no sense to build more of them.
 
I'm not exactly sure why we're having this debate any more. There is no threat of Rob Ford replacing existing streetcar routes with buses

I disagree. There is a threat. Ford has at least four more years to carry out his platform.

I will not be assured until I see the new air-conditioned, proof-of-purchase, high-capacity, low-floor streetcars gliding along the streets of Toronto. Ford won't be able to assemble enough political capital to kill those once they are on the streets. He might be able, however, to kill the obsolete CLRVs and sabotage the delivery of the Flexities.
 

Back
Top