No you didn't fix my post if I had meant to ad the word yet I would have. As I said the TTC has no current plans for double-ended cars as they don't even have the money to order more of the current ones they need.
You are correct
but I'm talking about the future and not about now. "Fixed it for ya" is not meant to be misinterpreted as an offense, but to point out something obvious (read onwards):
There are multiple paths forward. Look at the bullet list in my previous post; the pressures will eventually build that leads to elected funding within a few decades. The convergence factor will create the necessary funding eventually (whether be 10, 20, 50, 100 years). Remember, we're talking about a future era where GO is electric with free transfers between TTC+GO (We're most of the way there now: the $3.70 GO fares and the $3.25 TTC fares). And TTC-operated routes are not always capital-funded by TTC (Look at Crosstown LRT!).
No plans today doesn't mean no plans tomorrow: Several years before Crosstown LRT, the TTC had no money to fund a subway under Eglinton, and that old Eglinton subway construction was cancelled and buried in the 90s.
TTC gets to operate Crosstown: TTC could not afford that, yet TTC gets to operate it. Forest, meet tree. Tree, meet forest. Even when the subways are uploaded to Metrolinx eventually TTC will still continue to operate them. It's quite an obvious convergence if you walk about 10 kilometers backwards, timetravel 50 years, and view the whole picture. It all then suddenly clicks and makes sense. Even those who disagree with me, concedes that the societial path does seem to "trend" that direction to a slowly increasing likelihood of eventually metroifying a streetcar route even if they don't think it will happen by date X.
Prediction: I think I can confidently predict that metroifying a streetcar route will occur by 50 years (aka 2069). Talking to those who have ridden the ION/Ottawa LRT *and* the Toronto new streetcars, tend to be in near-unamious agreement with this now, they suddenly recognize there's little difference between an upgraded new-streetcar route, and a metro-league LRT using extremely similiar-looking vehicles. Wait till Ontario starts riding Crosstown and Hurontario and the tsunami voters will begin to press for funding this metroification gradually. Definition: full transit priority + exclusive lanes except intersections + level boarding + powered consist operations + upgrade to rapid transit performance. I feel it probably could happen within 25 years but even more realistically 50 years.
Boom of LRTs & Familiarity: Those who have ridden the Ottawa LRT, the ION LRT, and the Calgary C-Train, recognize the potential already. They're all capable of "linked-trains-of-trams" running in a metro-league corridor! Most of Ontario residents haven't discovered this yet, but they will once there are several LRTs already built (Crosstown, Hurontario, etc) -- they're just newstreetcars running in a metro corridor. Ottawa has an LRT which makes federal more willing to consider helping metroify a Toronto streetcar route. Toronto will have multiple LRTs which makes both provincial & municipal willing to metroify a streetcar route. Suddenly, more people (politicians and electorate) sees that a hybrid between Eglinton Crosstown and a TTC Streetcar route is very doable politically on some existing TTC streetcar route, suddenly gets funded by some kind of mix in a future votership (in an era when the entire bullet list of my previous post becomes true). Future familiarity (electorate & politicans) at all levels!
Eventual Gradual Increase in Voters Warm To Funding This: As a growing percentage of population gets familiar with LRTs in the 2020s-2030s, people are going to make the connection once they start falling in love with these routes, and start voter-demanding funding of a metroification of a specific streetcar route (eventually). The Crosstown (even its surface street sections) is another animal massively above Spadina and St Clair which weren't as "wow" in performance upgrade. Crosstown has metro performance characteristics that are WAY above Spadina and for St.Clair. Massively. Once people realize that, voters will demand metroification of at least one TTC streetcar corridor, as a cheap add-on "subway substitute". Crosstown is literally Toronto's version of "Calgary C-Train" in surface-intersection efficiency. People people will start recognizing that. That eventually flows down to the electorate. And masterplanners. And some future public information center. It is beyond current 25-year masterplan (TTC has no plans for example) but it's an extant route, and sometimes extant routes gets unexpected upgrades (Example: King Pilot)
Likelihood Factor Increase: Eventually in some future warm-to-"upgrade-a-streetcar-route-to-an-LRT" era (thanks to witnessing true full-metro-league LRTs, rather than half hearted stuff like Spadina or St.Clair), some politician gives out candy that voters bite, domino falls, and so on, number of years later, metroified streetcar line appears (much cheaper & easier route than the TTC-operated Crosstown). Just see bullet list in my previous post and the emerging likelihood collision factor -- so many signals/flags (railroad pun intended) that it's obvious. Even those who say it will never happen concede it's a very unmistakable likelihood-index change, much like "1 in 100 chance" turning into "1 in 5 chance" (cherrypick whatever numbers you prefer, but the pressure is towards likelihood-increase). It's just a matter of time though that "eventual future" lens.
What's happening is early-canary stuff. The new efficient Ontario LRTs could be viewed as razor-and-blades strategy that will get more people (voters!) demanding metroification of at least one streetcar route.
And yes, TTC will get to operate it, no matter who funds the metroification of a streetcar route.
(Definition: Turning streetcar route into a metro-style LRT = full LRT spec, with (A) full transit priority and (B) all-doors subway-style level boarding to (C) a "train" of multiple vehicles, (D) rapid-transit frequency, (E) six-figure ridership per day, (F) and rapid-transit speed/performance. Think Calgary C-Train, if you've ever ridden the Calgary C-Train in the downtown section)
The Ontario line will run under Queen if it ever gets built and the Queen Streetcar will continue to run above it as they will both have different readerships. Having only two stops on Queen street hardly justifies getting rid of Streetcars on Queen or king.
Correct, I know.
To clarify what I meant by my sentence: I meant it's easier to upgrade only King streetcar route to full metro-league standards, than to do two separate lightweight upgrades of King streetcar and Queen streetcar (e.g. close off Queen and King while keeping them streetcars-only).
Basically that sentence, actually meant to say
it is easier to close off only one streetcar route (to cars) than two of them (to cars), and in exchange for upgrading only one streetcar route getting a more supercharged metro-league upgrade instead instead of a simpler St.Clair/Spadina style upgrade (single vehicle, no transit priority, no consists, no level boarding).
Metaphorically, picture a preference between:
(A) Nonstarter: Block off
both Queen/King to most vehicles like a TOC streetcar corridor but keep it streetcar-league operation (no all-doors level boarding, no transit priority, simpler bus stops, no consist operations, only half hearted efficiency)
(B) Easier ask: Block off
only King lanes to all vehicles except intersections/emergency vehicles (true transit corridor) and upgrade only King to metro-league standards (60-to-90 meter consists, Calgary C-Train style operation, all-doors subway-style wheel-on level boarding, full transit priority, no cars allowed on tracks except at intersections)
Capacity improvement of (B) is bigger than (A) because of the consist operations, despite only one corridor instead of two blocked-off to cars, because of other upgrades (consist/metro style operation). The major upgrade of one route, exceeds minor upgrade of two routes. It's achievable -- let's remember Calgary C-Train pushes 300,000 people per day through a single downtown corridor through surface intersections. That's several times more than TTC's busiest streetcar route. That said, not necessarily that length of consist (just 2-coach or 3-coach long) and you can still double ridership along King -- and do it relatively cheaply compared to adding a 6th or 7th subway in that future era.
I already meant that Queen subway / DRL / Ontario Line (whatever goes under Queen) would continue get built, and obviously the Queen streetcars would still continue to run above. But Ontario Line won't be enough for the next 20 to 50 years (even if it gets upgraded to the larger TTC trains at full 6-coach length). There will need to be multiple metro-league lines downtown within 50 years anyway.
In other words: What I wrote is an
add-on, and does not replace anything (just upgrades a streetcar route). Basically, it's a bonus, a frosting, an add-on, nothing else gets lost.
Nobody is losing anything (except, well, perhaps, the chance to drive on King in the downtown section). About losing car lane to get upgraded mass-transit (more people transported in corridor) -- the voters of either 2030, 2040, 2050 or 2060 won't be nearly as against that then, as they are today.
In fact by one of those years, it may be easier politically and less contentious than today's King Pilot! (Thanks to the bullet list I wrote in my previous post)
