[nfitz]

The length of 2 CLRVs is greater than one of the new streetcars. About 9 feet more to be exact.

How do you get that? Your graphic shows the new streetcar is 30.2 metres long. A CRLV is 15.44 metres long. So depending on how they are coupled, a pair of CLRVs is 0.2 metres longer - or about a foot, plus the gap between the two coupled cars. Certainly not 9 feet.

But as you've pointed out in the graphic - in terms of platform length, it's the door to door length. You have 25.9 metres for the new streetcars. Using the sketch below, we can figure it out for a single CLRV. 1.524+6.020+1.503=9.047 metres. So for a pair, the door-to-door distance would be about 24.1 metres for the CLRV (plus the gap) compared to 25.9 metres for the new streetcar.

So the platform length for two coupled CLRVs would be perhaps 1.5 metres shorter than for a new streetcar.

 

[JoeParez]

How do you get that?

Thanks for checking my math.

 

[Electrify]

Could this have been avoided if the TTC took a moment to think about their 100% ultra low floor requirement?

Perhaps someone got the measurements confused? Wouldn't be the first time...

 

[rbt]

Could this have been avoided if the TTC took a moment to think about their 100% ultra low floor requirement?

No. You would need to develop some kind of a kneeling mechanism for the streetcars to reduce/eliminate this issue.

As mentioned earlier, San Diego recently raised all their platforms by about 2 inches for their new rolling stock which is about 70% low floor.

 

[Voltz]

No. You would need to develop some kind of a kneeling mechanism for the streetcars to reduce/eliminate this issue.

As mentioned earlier, San Diego recently raised all their platforms by about 2 inches for their new rolling stock which is about 70% low floor.

As well, there is no difference between the low floor section of a partial low floor streetcar, and a full low floor car.

 

[EnviroTO]

This forum is interesting sometimes. Who knew a requirement for PMP certification was clairvoyance, and inventing specifications and adding costs due to possible futures? The St.Clair project was designed in 2005 and completed in 2010, the contract for the new streetcars was signed 2009.

 

[GenerationW]

This forum is interesting sometimes. Who knew a requirement for PMP certification was clairvoyance, and inventing specifications and adding costs due to possible futures? The St.Clair project was designed in 2005 and completed in 2010, the contract for the new streetcars was signed 2009.

This is way overblown, but anything having to do with transit problems on St. Clair is gold for the media. And I'm sure the Fords are loving it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

This forum is interesting sometimes. Who knew a requirement for PMP certification was clairvoyance, and inventing specifications and adding costs due to possible futures? The St.Clair project was designed in 2005 and completed in 2010, the contract for the new streetcars was signed 2009.

Clairvoyance wasn't needed to do some level of planning. The TTC knew the current vehicles were very shortly to be replaced and that the specs for the new vehicles were not finalized, but that compatibility issues were possible.

I think the whole thing could be put to bed if someone in charge simple stated that:

Yes, when we designed the ROW in 2005 we of course understood that the life of our current streetcar fleet was coming to an end very shortly, and we recognized at the time that the specs for the next generation of streetcars were not yet finalized, but would likely impact platform, intersection clearance, rail, radius or overhead wire compatibility. Therefore we included in the 2005 ROW design, formal plans to review system-vehicle compatibility once the new vehicle specs were finalized. This review included the determination and costing out what adjustments would be needed, with formal presentation made to the TTC budget committee.

As scheduled we are now executing that part of the plan, with adjustments to the ROW now underway. Of course when the specs for the new vehicles were finalized in 2010 we immediately undertook the ROW compatibility review which has been presented to the TTC board in 2011, so these needed adjustments have been in the plans for over a year now, and of course already budgeted for. In summary, there is no surprise here folks, the TTC has been on top of this non-issue from the start.

Now, if that's the response Torontonians received, they'd be no news at all. This is the problem, the specs for the streetcars have been finalized for some time, and yet the estimated millions of $ needed to make the adjustments were not included in the 2013 transit budget, thus demonstrating the total shock and surprise at the TTC.

 

[nfitz]

Now, if that's the response Torontonians received, they'd be no news at all. This is the problem, the specs for the streetcars have been finalized for some time, and yet the estimated millions of $ needed to make the adjustments were not included in the 2013 transit budget, thus demonstrating the total shock and surprise at the TTC.

Isn't that essentially what Byford said in his press conference yesterday?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, but I'm saying that shock and surprise wasn't at all necessary had some simple planning taken place, and clairvoyance wasn't needed whatsoever.

 

[rbt]

Yes, but I'm saying that shock and surprise wasn't at all necessary had some simple planning taken place, and clairvoyance wasn't needed whatsoever.

There was no shock or surprise. The money appeared in the 2011 capital budget.

It's akin to buying brown shoes and finding out your black polish won't work on them. You know it in advance but it's not a big deal so you don't go to the press over it, you just buy the right colour of polish and continue on.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There was no shock or surprise. The money appeared in the 2011 capital budget.

It's akin to buying brown shoes and finding out your black polish won't work on them. You know it in advance but it's not a big deal so you don't go to the press over it, you just buy the right colour of polish and continue on.

Thanks Rbt. After I saw your note I went back to the original press conference and you're correct, Byford advised that the $50-odd million was already planned for, and the ROW and other system adjustments already identified, planned and budgeted for.

So, I must give credit to Byford and the TTC planners on this.

 

[Voltz]

More phony outrage from the Sun, Former budget chief Mike Del Grande claims to have been surprised about the two hour transfer widow pilot project.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/26/special-transfers-for-st-clair-streetcar-riders-questioned

 

[nfitz]

More phony outrage from the Sun, Former budget chief Mike Del Grande claims to have been surprised about the two hour transfer widow pilot project.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/26/special-transfers-for-st-clair-streetcar-riders-questioned

How can a councillor possibly be so ignorant about what is going on this city? It's been prominently displayed on TTC fare page for years - http://www.ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes/Fare_information/Transfers/Time_based_transfers.jsp - the page is unchanged from the content it had 5 years ago - http://web.archive.org/web/20080820...nformation/Transfers/Time_based_transfers.jsp

And how can the Sun be so bad at research that they can only conclude it started back in 2006/2007? It took about 30 seconds to find that it started in July 2005 - according to this 2005 TTC PDF - http://web.archive.org/web/20060419...o.ca/ttc/pdf/time_based_transfer_brochure.pdf

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Sad to see Don Peat covering this story. He's not a bad reporter for the Sun.