Toronto's streetcars are struggling. I've got three ways to rev those trams up a bit.

Don't let our new LRTs distract us from fixing up our legacy tram network.

If you look closely, you’ll note that this TTC Flexity Outlook tram is out of service. This is symbolic of how Toronto streetcars are condemned by God to a life of suffering. | Copyright © Jake Landau, all rights reserved.

What’s the difference between Toronto’s streetcar routes, and Toronto’s LRT lines? The name, mostly. The new LRTs will have some improvements, both some need-to-haves and some nice-to-haves, but ultimately, a tram is a tram is a tram.

I’ve written about this before, but unfortunately some people gained a misconception that I dislike trams, which I do not. When I insist on the similarity between Toronto’s 500-series streetcars, and Toronto’s Line 6 Finch West under testing, it’s not a criticism, it’s just an observation of fact.

In truth, I really do like trams, and it’s very easy to see their place in a public transit system. I dislike when they are built in larger cities as an alternative to metro lines; I appreciate, however, when they are built as a complement to metro lines.

I think the Line 6 tram should extend eastward to replace the 36 Finch West bus all the way into Finch Station on Line 1. At the same time, I think the Line 4 metro should extend westward to replace the 84 Sheppard West bus going into Sheppard West Station on Line 1 (and then into Downsview Park Station too while we’re at it).

Neither of these projects would erase the need for each other; a street-running tram and a grade-separated metro would serve separate needs, and many North York residents would end up using both in a single journey.

But Toronto has a problem. In our correct decision to expand our public transit infrastructure and build a plethora of new tram and metro projects, we have neglected our existing infrastructure.

Toronto’s streetcar network, our legacy trams, are struggling. I will not complain about Toronto’s Line 6 and Mississauga’s Line 10 being built to modern tram standards. All I can ask of Toronto is that we commit additional funding to bring our legacy tram network into that same modern era.

So, with that in mind, here are three things we can do to beef up Toronto’s streetcars. These things are a lot more basic than new trains or new lines, and they don’t get as much attention.

If we combine these improvements with a rebranding to market these upgrades to the public, we can make it a politically viable project, and give our legacy trams a fresh lease on life in Toronto.

1. Switch up those single-point switches

The operator of our Flexity Outlook tram gets out of the vehicle to manually flip the single-point track switch, which is not something that you should need as regular practice this side of the millenium! | Copyright © Jake Landau, all rights reserved.

Currently, aside from some parts of the TTC maintenance yards, Toronto’s legacy tram network of streetcar tracks use single-point switches for trams to change their heading.

What makes a switch single-point? Only one of the rails has a switching element. On the other hand, with a dual-point switch, both of the rails have an element that moves. Dual-point switches are more modern, have better signalling, and are safer.

Single-point switches are older, their signalling systems are not just worse but degraded, and they have safety concerns that have impacted TTC guidance for operators.

Currently, every single time a TTC operator approaches a single-point switch with a streetcar, they must slow to a crawl to physically observe the switch. Many times, they need to go and physically crank the switch by hand, exiting the vehicle.

Since the Bombardier (now Alstom) Flexity Outlook trams are already compatible with dual-point switches that get used in the yards, the answer here is obvious. Toronto should progressively remove single-point switches across the entire legacy tram network downtown, and replace them with dual-point switches.

Furthermore, if a street does not actually require a switch, and these switches are only used infrequently for subpar diversions outside of revenue service, then it may not be necessary to replace the switch.

While trams go faster over dual-point switches than single-point switches, they go even faster when there’s no switch at all. Our legacy tram network in Old Toronto should consider, when evaluating the switch at a specific intersection, whether it is best to replace with a dual-point switch, or simply lay down straight track with no switch.

In either case, this is a clear deficit in infrastructure with a simple solution to improve speed and service. This kind of work has a clear goal for completion, and is a relatively simple, if repetitive task for crews to perform.

2. Build some passing tracks in the loops

Recently, it was necessary for the 512 St. Clair tram to divert down to Bathurst Station due to street repairs. Here, you can see a 511 Bathurst tram idling to the left, as a 512 St. Clair loops into the station platform. | Copyright © Jake Landau, all rights reserved.

One of the defining traits that does distinguish Toronto’s legacy tram network from the newer Line 6 and Line 10 under construction is that it uses loops rather than crossovers.

On the Bombardier Flexity Freedom and Alstom Citadis Spirit we’ll be using across our LRTs, the vehicle has an operator cab at both ends, enabling it to reverse directions using crossovers between stops and stations.

But Toronto’s legacy tram network predates the use of crossover tracks, and instead relies on larger, space-intensive loops. As such, the Bombardier Flexity Outlook, while from the same family as the Flexity Freedom, instead is built with only a single operator cab, and is designed to turn around using track loops.

For future tram lines, Metrolinx is thankfully using crossover tracks, which take up less space. But any extensions to the legacy tram network will need to keep these loops in mind.

Toronto is not alone in this, however, as Berlin also possesses different tram lines with loops and crossovers, as well as varied rolling stock to suit them. Berlin has much better usage of these loops however, which removes some of our bottlenecks.

When a loop, either attached to a metro station or street-based, only serves a single route, there is less concern about bottlenecks. But when a loop serves multiple tram routes, trams for one route will be delayed waiting behind trams from a different route.

This does have an established solution with passing tracks, allowing the trams to split and allow one to pass another. In doing so, this allows multiple routes to operate efficiently without bottlenecking each other with their load/unload cycles.

This is already used in a few areas on the TTC; at Broadview Station and Dundas West Station, the loop splits into two platforms, one for the 504A/B King trams and another for the 505 Dundas tram. Exhibition Loop additionally features a passing track for the same purpose, to split the 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst trams into separate loading areas.

Finally, the Woodbine Loop in the Beaches features two parallel tracks for the 501 Queen and 503 Kingston Road trams; in this case, however, the Woodbine Loop is not accessible to passengers as a revenue stop. In the vast majority of cases, however, the TTC has far fewer passing tracks on our loops than comparable tram networks.

There is one additional benefit to adding passing tracks to the loops, beyond the efficiencies from reducing bunching; if you have a dedicated platform for different tram routes, you can ensure nobody accidentally boards the wrong tram.

This happened during the 512 St. Clair diversions, where passengers for the 511 Bathurst would accidentally step aboard the incorrect tram at Bathurst Station, and go in the wrong direction. Separate platforms reduce confusion, as well as generally increasing boarding and unboarding speed.

The loop at Union Station, which serves both the 509 Harbourfront and 510 Spadina trams yet has no passing track, is a prime example of how this bottlenecking can delay transfers and cause significant bunching across the system.

Relieving these pain points in Toronto’s loops would not merely accelerate existing routes. It would also enable the creation of new ones, such as a northern extension of the 511 Bathurst tram up to the St. Clair tracks.

And yes, it goes without saying that the track switches used for these loops should only be dual-point switches. We should not add even more single-point switches in our attempts to increase system efficiency.

3. Make the stops nicer and add level platforms

The 506 Carlton westbound tram stops at Yonge and College to load and unload passengers. These two cars ignored the flashing red lights on the tram, and illegally drove into the mass of people exiting the LRV. | Copyright © Jake Landau, all rights reserved.

The unfortunate reality is that most stops along the 500-series legacy trams in Toronto are quite terrible. In many cases, bus stops across the city will possess a physical shelter and a digital screen with the time for the next vehicle; in comparison, tram stops will frequently have neither of these resources.

Further, while a bus will stop right beside the curb to open the door, the majority of the 500-series legacy trams stop in the middle of the road, while operating in mixed traffic. This means, as in the photo above, that the safety of passengers is risked by motor vehicles plowing through as you board and unboard your tram.

Thankfully, the 509, 510 and 512 trams feature a dedicated right-of-way in the median, and a set of average-quality shelters at most stops. This should be the bare minimum for any route in which Toronto has invested the money to maintain tram infrastructure.

Passengers should have a safe, well-maintained tram stop with a physical rain shelter, heaters for the winter months, slightly raised platforms that are level with the floors on the Flexity Outlook LRVs, and working digital signage indicating the next tram’s arrival.

There is one further improvement we can make, however, that would bring it to full parity with Line 6 and Line 10. While the 500-series legacy trams feature PRESTO readers onboard, which you tap while entering the vehicle, the newer bidirectional trams won’t feature onboard fare card readers.

Stops for these “LRT” lines will instead have fare machines at the station, same as with GO trains and the TTC metro stations. Placing the vehicle boarding within a controlled fare zone means that passengers board much quicker, as fares have already been paid. PRESTO is already equipped to recognize these kind of transfers within a zone.

With better switches, better loops, and better stops, we can elevate Toronto’s legacy trams to a tier much closer to the newer LRTs. But what use would all of this be for our politicians without a fresh coat of paint, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony?

And now, we consult the marketing team.

Toronto’s trams should be notably different and distinguished from Toronto’s bus service. As 500-series routes get upgraded to a modern standard, they should adopt new T-series tram branding accordingly. | Copyright © Jake Landau, all rights reserved.

The way that Toronto arranges our surface transportation route numbers is, to say the least…confusing. I’ve selected the route numbers above to illustrate a certain point, but there is further complexity.

Firstly, our “metro” lines get a simple number, such as Line 1 Yonge—University, Line 2 Bloor—Danforth, Line 4 Sheppard, and the recently deceased Line 3 Scarborough. Internally, the TTC categorizes these as “600”-serie routes, and initially the 509 Harbourfront tram was actually the “604”, funnily enough.

Line 5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West will get the same treatment, which you can argue is valid for Line 5 but seems rather arbitrary with Line 6, which is indisputably a surface tram akin to the 510 Spadina line.

“500”-series routes are Toronto’s eleven routes on the legacy tram network, our “streetcars”. The “300”-series routes are the Blue Night services that operate at night after the metro closes; the “streetcar” network also operates under Blue Night, with 300-series numbers.

Local buses use normal numbers starting at 7 (for the Bathurst bus), going up to 1XX (currently 189 Stockyards). When the box is fully red, it’s an all-day regular service bus, but when the box is white with a red outline, it’s only a limited service bus with set hours.

When the bus is an express bus, which makes fewer stops than the surface counterpart routes, it’s a 900-series bus. Sometimes, these express buses have dedicated lanes, but a lot of the time they are subject to the same traffic limitations as the local bus.

200-series routes are seasonal services, which means they only operate during the warmer monthers of the year to public attractions. All of the 200-series routes use the standard bus fleet, except for 203 High Park, which uses a low-floor shuttlebus.

Finally, 400-series routes are community bus routes, which use the same Arboc SOI 21 low-floor shuttlebus. These connect seniors’ residences to local amenities, and passengers can flag stop the bus anywhere along the route.

If all of that confused you heavily, don’t worry, it confuses me too, and I’ve lived here for twenty-five years. Imagine how confusing this must be for tourists and business visitors?

How is anyone who just got to Toronto supposed to know that a 500-series route is a tram? Or that a 900-series bus means it’s express? Or what the difference between a red box and an empty box is supposed to mean for a normal bus? We can make a lot of these clearer by using letters rather tham just numbers, as well as changing the shape of the route logo.

We can’t fix all of these numbers at once, but separating out trams is a start. And if politicians are going to go through the effort of allocating funding and using their political capital, they’re going to want something visibily different, something they can show off to the public and say “this is newer and this is better,” and feel confident in saying so.

As 500-series tram routes gradually receive these upgrades, rename them using the hypothetical logos I’ve provided above, as T-series routes. T1, T2, T3, T4, etc. This is already common practice with the Paris tramways, which model many best practices for integrating trams into cities alongside metros and RER service.

Politicians can package and market this infrastructure project in a way easily understandable to the public. We can set reasonable expectations, and deliver positive results to the people, and build confidence in the public service and their ability to do good.

Toronto’s bus numbering system may be complex, but by taking trams out of it entirely, we can make it less complex. If we’d like to renumber Line 6 Finch West as a T-series route, that would also set better public expectations so that people do not get angry about expecting a metro and “only” receiving a tram.

I like trams a great deal. Trams are the best of both buses and trains, and they’re an important part of Toronto’s public transit system. I see the ideal place for a tram as anywhere a bus route is always slam-packed, like 29 Dufferin / 929 Dufferin Express and 7 Bathurst.

And most of all, I’m glad that Toronto is building some newer trams with some better practices. Admittedly, Line 5 and 6 in Toronto and Line 10 in Mississauga will still have some warts they shouldn’t have. But forward momentum is always a good thing.

All I ask, as we build these shiny new trams, is that we remember to bring some of those improvements back to the current tram lines we’ve been riding for a very long time.

Remember, the 501 Queen tram was electrified by Toronto in 1893. These trams have been here longer than the vast majority of living people, and they very well may outlive all of us reading these words of mine.

So perhaps, let us treat these trams that have served us so well, with a bit more appreciation and care.