[ehlow]

When then, you read wrong.

Btw, the new streetcars are LRVs too, just like the old streetcars..

Cool, I'm wrong? Care to provide any reasons why, other than stating that I'm wrong?

TTC's new streetcar website's FAQ that addresses this exact question:
https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/New_Streetcars/FAQ/FAQ_Vehicle_Size.jsp

Can the new vehicles be coupled together in two-car trains similar to those now operating in Europe?
The vehicles can be coupled together for maintenance purposes, but it is not necessary for the purposes of passenger-related services. The new streetcars already have significantly more capacity than the existing streetcars which minimizes the need for coupled trains in service.

But regardless of whether it's possible, there are no plans to run the new streetcars as multi unit trains. The LRTs however, are clearly planned to run 2-3 unit trains. Eglinton specifically states it will run 2 car trains.

By "streetcar", I clearly mean the Flexity Outlook that was designed to run on Toronto's streetcar tracks.
By "LRV", I mean the Flexity Freedom vehicles which were ordered for the LRT lines like Eglinton and Waterloo.

There are differences between the two other than multi-unit operation:
The LRVs are wider.
The LRVs are bi-directional (cabs on both ends).
The LRVs have doors on both sides.
The new streetcar has the special TTC gauge and tighter turn radius.

 

[TOareaFan]

Cool, I'm wrong? Care to provide any reasons why, other than stating that I'm wrong?

TTC's new streetcar website's FAQ that addresses this exact question:
https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/New_Streetcars/FAQ/FAQ_Vehicle_Size.jsp

I may be reading that wrong but I can't see that as saying they "can't" be joined together just that they won't be because the new ones have such large capacity anyway. Nothing there contradicts Doady's suggestion that the existing vehicles should be joined and run as 2 or 3 car trains.

 

[ehlow]

I may be reading that wrong but I can't see that as saying they "can't" be joined together just that they won't be because the new ones have such large capacity anyway. Nothing there contradicts Doady's suggestion that the existing vehicles should be joined and run as 2 or 3 car trains.

Even so, my point stands that there is no intention of running them in multi-car trains like there is for the LRTs.

 

[jeffreym]

They can't be because the coupling don't provide all of the controls necessary to operate them in trains for regular service. Only the connections needed to haul dead cars back to the yard. I don't remember what exactly is missing off of the top of my head, but it'd be things like braking, the camera feeds, etc.

 

[TOareaFan]

Even so, my point stands that there is no intention of running them in multi-car trains like there is for the LRTs.

and, I may be wrong, Doady was not suggesting the new vehicles be run as mutlit car...he was suggesting that our current vehicles would make the system more efficient if they were operated as such.

 

[dowlingm]

There was a proposal to add couplers back to the CLRVs as part of the rebuild program in 2006. I think that entire thing got junked, not just the couplers, with the Flexity order. The CLRVs have had their couplers removed for so long it's questionable as to whether the MU gizmos it would connect to work anyway. Time has marched on and with every year that the AODA draws nearer the cost benefit shrinks for any work on the legacy fleet.

If any opportunity was missed on the legacy fleet it may have been adding a powered and accessible centre section to the 50 ALRVs as part of a full refit as Dallas did with their Kinkisharyo LRVs (a similar project is happening in New Jersey to similar vehicles on the HBLR). Bombardier had less incentive than KS to design on given the much smaller ALRV market so the unit cost would likely have been prohibitive.

The only slight justification I could think of to fit couplers on any current cars would be to keep rolling a CLRV whose cab was inoperative somehow but could be operated as a driverless trailer on 504 pending Flexity. Given the delays in the Flexity rollout and the pressures on the 504 to the point where there are rumours that the ALRVs will not be preferentially retired after all, it may be that any money and effort directed at the legacy fleet will be in the direction of a few more years of the artics rather than opening a potential can of worms in coupling otherwise unrefitted CLRVs.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There was a proposal to add couplers back to the CLRVs as part of the rebuild program in 2006. I think that entire thing got junked, not just the couplers, with the Flexity order. The CLRVs have had their couplers removed for so long it's questionable as to whether the MU gizmos it would connect to work anyway. Time has marched on and with every year that the AODA draws nearer the cost benefit shrinks for any work on the legacy fleet.

If any opportunity was missed on the legacy fleet it may have been adding a powered and accessible centre section to the 50 ALRVs as part of a full refit as Dallas did with their Kinkisharyo LRVs (a similar project is happening in New Jersey to similar vehicles on the HBLR). Bombardier had less incentive than KS to design on given the much smaller ALRV market so the unit cost would likely have been prohibitive.

The only slight justification I could think of to fit couplers on any current cars would be to keep rolling a CLRV whose cab was inoperative somehow but could be operated as a driverless trailer on 504 pending Flexity. Given the delays in the Flexity rollout and the pressures on the 504 to the point where there are rumours that the ALRVs will not be preferentially retired after all, it may be that any money and effort directed at the legacy fleet will be in the direction of a few more years of the artics rather than opening a potential can of worms in coupling otherwise unrefitted CLRVs.

While they could add additional articulated sections to the new Flexity Outlook streetcars, the loops and platforms would not be able to handle the extended lengths.

 

[Fred.S]

While they could add additional articulated sections to the new Flexity Outlook streetcars, the loops and platforms would not be able to handle the extended lengths.

I don't think the Flexity Outlooks are designed to accomodate adding sections. The Flexity Freedoms, a more customizable platform, only come in 3-section and 5-section variants.

 

[Northern Light]

According the article linked below, plans are underway to make many changes to King street as early as 2017.

Many would initially be 'pilot projects' in order to avoid cumbersome approval processes.

Various ideas including exclusive streetcar ROW, protected bike lanes, more pedestrian space and selective one-way operation for cars are under consideration.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...-redesign-king-street-and-quickly-keenan.html

 

[nfitz]

There's a couple of extensive threads about this long-standing plan already:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-king-queen-streetcar-right-of-way-speculative.19816/

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/king-street-streetcar-mall-proposal.2933/

 

[andrewpmk]

Closing King St to cars is political suicide and will never happen.

 

[gweed123]

Personally, I would have rather preferred that Queen get this treatment, but I think this is a great idea. I wonder if they can rejig the streetcar system to send half of the 501s from South Etobicoke onto King instead of Queen, since it's likely that King will end up being significantly faster.

 

[gweed123]

Closing King St to cars is political suicide and will never happen.

Not completely to cars, just to thru traffic. Use Richmond/Adelaide, it's significantly faster anyway.

 

[nfitz]

Closing King St to cars is political suicide and will never happen.

Given that there are a lot more people walking, cycling, and taking the streetcar, than driving, how is making more people happy, political suicide?

And what kind of fordwit would drive along King for more than a couple of blocks anyway? Richmond/Adelaide or Wellington are far quicker.

Perhaps it will impact the 905 voters who vote for mayor ...

 

[Napoleon]

Closing King St to cars is political suicide and will never happen.

Not completely to cars, just to thru traffic. Use Richmond/Adelaide, it's significantly faster anyway.

This is exactly what Market Street in San Francisco did. Through-traffic is not allowed except for buses/streetcars/taxis. They built some great dedicated bike infrastructure as well. There's a parallel street (Mission) that's far better for through automobile traffic. They've also added some beautiful bus lanes coupled with TSP that get buses to/from Market Street.

For people opposed to this, one merely has to stop and ponder the usage of King Street. It's filled with large office towers and large condo towers in the core. Moving all these people around in private automobiles is transit suicide...it's just not possible. Closing one downtown street to through traffic to enhance a woeful lack of east-west rapid transit in the core, improve biking infrastructure, and improve the pedestrian experience is a fantastic idea.