[W. K. Lis]

Airport Tripper Service

Today, the TTC has only two tripper streetcar services:
503 Kingston Road (Kingston Road, Queen Street, King Street, Church Street, Wellington Street, York Street, and back to King Street) and
508 Lake Shore (Lake Shore Blvd., Queensway, King Street, Parliament Street, Queen Street, Church Street, and back to King Street).

A tripper streetcar is a term for a special rush-hour service vehicle. The term dates back from before subway service when several streetcar routes in Toronto had alternate tripper services supplementing the base route. At some time in the past, these trippers were in service (some of the roads listed were two way streets back then, but are now one way):

• King tripper had the King car extended west on Bloor Street to the Jane loop.
• Bathurst tripper ran from Keele and St. Clair, along St. Clair , Bathurst, and Adelaide, looping at Victoria, Richmond, and Church St, returning via Adelaide.
• Davenport tripper (pre-Ossington bus) was extended from its south-end Shaw and King looping along King to loop at Church, Front, George, and King.
• Carlton-East tripper came from the east and turned south on Parliament to Dundas, along Dundas to loop at Victoria, Adelaide, and Church back up to Dundas.
• King-Beach went from Neville Park, along Queen and King, looping at York, Wellington, Front, and Sherbourne back up to King.
• Danforth Tripper went along the Danforth and Bloor, then down Church to loop at Queen, York, Richmond, and back up Church again.
• Sherbourne (the south loop was King to York and south to Union, then return via York) tripper was extended east along Bloor and Danforth to Coxwell.

They eventually disappeared, mostly when the subway came into service.

With the Transit City line, the establishment of tripper services could be considered. If the Don Mills and Jane LRT’s could become the upper parts of a Downtown Relief Line, an Airport Tripper Service could be studied. An Airport Tripper Service could use the downtown portion, the Jane, and Eglinton lines to get to the airport.

Other trippers could use the Finch West or Sheppard East lines as parts of tripper services to go downtown without transferring vehicles at Jane or Don Mills. They could replace some of the short turns, if passengers could stay on the vehicles to continue their trip.

 

[Rainforest]

You're right about ranking projects. They all need to be done, but many are in danger of being screwed by Transit City.

Actually, DRL might be helped by Transit City. Suburbs getting their LRT lines, focus shifts to the downtown core.

 

[adma]

Subway? LRT? How about something Wuppertal-like

 

[interchange42]

Southern Germany? Who called it that? It's just east of Dusseldorf! (and a great ride...)

42

 

[LCF2884]

The Choice between Subway or LRT

Why can't we use ICTS (an intermediate form, lighter than a Subway but more capacity than an LRT)? I don't think that a light rail (even on its own right of way, is adequate to serve as an alternate route into downtown. And building a full blown subway, especially through the suburban Don Mills neighbourhood, is too expensive or not justifiable.

With ICTS, the TTC has the option of building elevated lines over much longer distances than with subways. And the vehicles themselves are more affordable in terms of maintenance, as there are less moving parts to take care of.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/t2000bc/images/skytrain_west_ of_main.jpg


Here, ICTS vehicles are much lighter than subway trains, and stations can also be built above ground, especially along the Don Mills section, without being visually intruding.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Why can't we use ICTS (an intermediate form, lighter than a Subway but more capacity than an LRT)? I don't think that a light rail (even on its own right of way, is adequate to serve as an alternate route into downtown. And building a full blown subway, especially through the suburban Don Mills neighbourhood, is too expensive or not justifiable.

With ICTS, the TTC has the option of building elevated lines over much longer distances than with subways. And the vehicles themselves are more affordable in terms of maintenance, as there are less moving parts to take care of.

Here, ICTS vehicles are much lighter than subway trains, and stations can also be built above ground, especially along the Don Mills section, without being visually intruding.

Let's see here...

A) ICTS is a very expensive technology.

B) It doesn't work very well in cold climates, as we learned with the RT.

C) It doesn't have much higher a capacity than LRT when in a completely segregated ROW.

 

[unimaginative2]

There's no reason why a subway line can't be elevated for just as long a distance as ICTS. There's no reason why an elevated subway line couldn't be built in the Don Mills corridor. In fact, I think it would be highly desirable.

While ICTS/Skytrain is a great technology that's very successful in other cities, it's an orphan in Toronto. There's no serious prospect of extending it. In fact, when routes like the Downtown Relief Line were first studied in the 80s, they were planned to use ICTS. Closer study, however, showed that the capacity demand was so high on the route that it necessitated full subway technology.

 

[nfitz]

ICTS might not be suitable for a DRL. But what about an Eglinton line? Essentially extend the SRT from Kennedy eastwards along (and under) Eglinton.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Don Mills would be a great corridor to revive the trench subways seen, especially, on the Yonge line south of Eglinton. No expensive tunnels required, dip under major intersections for shallow stations. Long stretches of Don Mills have absolutely nothing adjacent to the road...why tunnel or even elevate it when there's strips of grass and parking lots available to run it in?

 

[Panzerfaust]

ICTS might not be suitable for a DRL. But what about an Eglinton line? Essentially extend the SRT from Kennedy eastwards along (and under) Eglinton.

Similar cost to subways with little to no gain?

 

[unimaginative2]

ICTS might not be suitable for a DRL. But what about an Eglinton line? Essentially extend the SRT from Kennedy eastwards along (and under) Eglinton.

That's definitely a possibility. An inviting one, when you consider what the public-private-partnership Canada Line is building in Vancouver: 18.5km of ICTS, mostly underground, for a total cost of $1.5 billion to governments. That's almost as long as the Eglinton LRT, it's fully grade-separated, and it's half the price.

Still, I think that LRT is probably a pretty good choice for Eglinton, assuming the TTC operates it properly. I really think that we should avoid using too many different technologies if possible. Right now, ICTS is the orphan. It should be eliminated along with the useless Kennedy transfer, and the subway extended to Scarborough Centre.

 

[RedRocket191]

The Canada Line is not ICTS. It uses a competing technology. The Canada line is a very bad example to use if you're talking about getting rid of orphaned technology.

 

[CDL.TO]

Well, it is an intermediate capacity transit system, just not UTDC/Bombardier ICTS technology.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes, I know, but it's comparable. I should have written ICTS-style, though it is by any measure an intermediate capacity transit system. I think it's a fantastic model, and it's hardly an orphan since it's 18.5 km long.

 

[RedRocket191]

Yes, I know, but it's comparable. I should have written ICTS-style, though it is by any measure an intermediate capacity transit system. I think it's a fantastic model, and it's hardly an orphan since it's 18.5 km long.

I would argue that it is ophaned, as the BC government has committed to building the next round of lines (some of them fully independent of the current network) as SkyTrain.