Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to travel to the US Midwest. My spouse had a business meeting to attend in Chicago, so we made the most of our trip. I spent time in a few interesting cities, including Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Having been to Chicago many times now, I sought out new and interesting places to visit off the tourists’ beaten paths. One of these places was The 606/Bloomingdale Trail, located a few miles northwest of Chicago’s downtown Loop.
Though Chicago is famous for its elevated railway transit system (known as the “L”) it is also crisscrossed by hundreds of miles of mainline and spur railways, most of which is grade-separated from the local street network. These rail corridors were built by over a dozen railroad companies, whose vast networks converged on Chicago, bringing in, among many other things, grain, cattle, metals, and sending out cereals, meat products, industrial goods, and merchandise purchased from Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward. Chicago’s dominance as a rail centre allowed it to grow into America’s second-largest city (it is now the third-largest).
There are still many railways and yards throughout the city, along with an expansive commuter rail network, but many of the industrial spurs and branch lines became redundant with the decline of heavy industry and the shift to trucking. The Bloomingdale line, once a busy freight corridor owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (known as the Milwaukee Road, later part of Canadian Pacific’s network) was just one of these routes.
Some local industries still stand on Bloomingdale Avenue next to the abandoned rail corridor
The trail, built as a partnership between the local Friends of Bloomingdale Trail group, the federal non-profit Trust for Public Land, and the City of Chicago, opened in June 2013. Ten years later, the corridor is kept in excellent shape, and still looks fresh. The 4.3 kilometre (2.7 mile) trail is the longest elevated greenway in North America, longer even than New York’s High Line.
On the day I visited, I rode the entire length of the trail in one direction on a Divvy bikeshare bike and walked most of the distance on the way back.
The Bloomingdale Trail crosses Central Park Avenue, near the western terminus of the public corridor
Unlike the High Line, the Bloomingdale Trail is open to cyclists, and is much less programmed, catering more to the surrounding neighbourhoods than tourists. The pathway is quite wide, making it quite suited to multiple uses. On each side of the pathway is a rubberized track, providing an incentive to walkers and runners to keep to the right. The trees are well maintained, providing plenty of shade. Benches and working water fountains are found throughout.
Rubberized edges on both sides of the pathwayOne of many water fountains along the routeA stand of poplars and a walking path at a wider part of the elevated right-of-way
As the path follows an elevated rail corridor, not every intersecting street has an entrance to The 606/Bloomingdale Trail. However, fully accessible ramps are offered every 3-4 blocks, with stairwells installed at other locations. Wayfinding signage is good too, indicating the distances to local highlights and the nearest exits.
Wayfinding sign, indicating trail highlights, connecting parks, and the next exits
One thing I really appreciated about the Bloomingdale Trail are the unique vantage points. Milwaukee Avenue offers a lovely view towards Wicker Park and the Loop, while other parts of the trail pass by neighbourhood parks, backyards, and old warehouses.
Looking southeast down Milwaukee Avenue towards Wicker ParkView looking northwest to the Blue Line L and the alley behind Milwaukee Avenue
At several intersecting streets, benches have been strategically placed to provide gathering places called “overlooks.” Where it crosses Humboldt Boulevard, part of the parkway ring surrounding central Chicago, over hundred people could sit and watch the traffic below. at once
Lookout to Humboldt Boulevard
Though the circumstances that allowed for the great elevated parks like Chicago’s 606 or New York’s High Line are unique to their locations, there are lessons that can be learned for other projects, as in Toronto.
The presence of shade helps to make Chicago’s Bloomingdale Trail a success, as does the very wide pathway that accommodates all active transport users. (On a pleasant Thursday afternoon, the trail was about as busy as the Lower Don Trail here in Toronto, but the wide spaces reduced conflict between walkers, runners, and cyclists.) There need not be a lot of special features to animate the space, though thoughtful places to sit, hydrate, and connect to intersecting public spaces and streets are important.
There are opportunities for Toronto to expand and improve upon its off-street greenways like the West Toronto Rail Path, the ravine trails, the Greenway, and possibilities for the Green Line and East Toronto; this is just one example of the concept done well.
Islington Station, opened in 1968 as part of a major expansion of the Toronto subway system into Etobicoke and Scarborough, is now literally falling apart.
At platform level, Islington looks little different than most stations on the Bloor-Danforth Line with the faded wall tile, coated with a layer of brake dust. Upstairs, on the concourse level and the old bus terminal, the station is in far worse shape. Wear and tear from hundreds of buses entering and exiting the station every day, along with water seepage from an underground stream, has caused the station to look much older than it actually is.
From 1968 to 1980, Islington Station was the Bloor-Danforth Line’s western terminus, with buses branching out to points all over Etobicoke. The bus terminal boasted six bus bays, each with its own driveway. One of the six platforms was dedicated for Gray Coach services, which included an express bus to Pearson Airport.
An arriving bus would first pull into the east side of the terminal, with all passengers descending a set of stairs to the subway concourse, either to transfer to the subway, exit the station, or transfer to another bus route. The bus, once the operator took their break, would then pull forward to the boarding area, where a second set of stairs emerged from a waiting area. Below, on the concourse level, a flashing light would alert waiting passengers that their bus was boarding. The terminal design was similar to the original bus terminal at Eglinton Station; at Warden Station, the levels are reversed, with the bus bays below the passenger concourse.
Aerial view of Islington Station’s bus terminal in 1975, City of Toronto Archives, Series 836, Subseries 4, File 46. Note the Mississauga Transit bus passing by on Bloor Street. Looking northwest toward the sealed-off bus terminal, May 2023
In 1980, the subway was extended one stop westward to Kipling. The extension allowed the TTC to reroute most of its Etobicoke routes from Islington, which provided new space for Mississauga Transit, whose buses now loaded inside the bus terminal. (As the bus bays are inside the station’s fare-paid area, Mississauga Transit buses off-loaded passengers outside the station’s main entrance on Islington Avenue.) A seventh bay, located to the south of the original structure, was added to provide additional capacity for Mississauga Transit, however, only simple bus shelters provided protection from the rain and snow.
But by 2016, the bus terminal area was starting to crumble, and bus bays 1 and 2 (the bus bays closest to the subway platforms) were closed permanently to prevent further structural damage. Mississauga and GO Transit planned for a new terminal adjacent to Kipling Station, but it was delayed by several years. Part of the delay was caused by Hydro One — owner of the transmission lines that parallel the subway and adjacent Canadian Pacific Railway corridor — who refused to allow a terminal building under its wires.
The opening of the new Kipling terminal for GO and Mississauga Transit buses in May 2021 (repositioned to avoid the hydro corridor) allowed the TTC to permanently close the crumbling bus terminal bays. All remaining buses — 37/937 Islington, 50 Burnhamthorpe, and 110 Islington South — began only using the outer bus loading area in late 2021.
Bus passage, Islington Station. Stairways to the old bus bays are sealed off, with the signs above the old stairways blacked out. Passengers transferring to TTC buses must walk to the far end of this corridor and then up a stairway to access the outer bus bay.
With little room remaining for buses to load, offload, and layover, passengers on TTC buses arriving at Islington are now let off on the street and must walk to the main entrance and show their transfer or tap their Presto card to enter the subway or transfer to another bus. Though Route 37/937 and 50 buses stop right in front of the station entrance on Islington Avenue, Route 110 buses off load on Bloor Street, a two-minute walk to the subway entrance.
A Route 110A Islington South bus off loads on Bloor Street; passengers must walk north to the subway entrance on Islington Avenue, to the right of this photograph
Since the bus terminal closure, the decay at Islington Station has extended beyond the bus area. On the mezzanine level, ceiling tiles were removed, while black netting catches chunks of broken concrete. Removed wall tiles reveal crumbling concrete and exposed rebar. Water leaks cover the mezzanine floor. There are no signs advising passengers of work underway or future construction, though there have been several plans to rebuild the station and promote new development on the site.
Fare gates partially obscured by temporary columns
Not only is reconstruction needed to rectify the deteriorating state of the station, Islington is also one of 15 subway stations that still do not have barrier-free access for passengers using wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Islington and Warden were left at the bottom of the list for station retrofits largely due to the difficulty of providing barrier-free access. The outdated bus terminal layouts at those stations require complete redesigns, and both stations are good candidates for urban development.
Netting keeps chunks of concrete from falling onto passengers’ headsCrumbling terrazzo floor in the passageway underneath Islington AvenueWater leak on the concourse level
There have been several proposals for redevelopment at Islington, taking advantage of its large bus terminal area and parking lot. The city first looked at redevelopment in 2006. At that time, there was a proposal from engineering firm SNC-Lavalin for a new office building that would incorporate a rebuilt station. However, that proposal deal fell through.
In 2021, a new plan to rebuild the station was presented to the public. It would include a new six-bay bus terminal in the commuter parking lot north of the existing terminal. Upon completion, the old bus area would be redeveloped under the city’s CreateTO housing program. Aberfoyle Crescent, which connects Islington Avenue and Bloor Street, would be extended through the station property to provide bus access and allow for development of the rest of the station property. The site is constrained by the same Hydro One corridor that stymied construction of the new Kipling terminal (much of the parking lot is under hydro wires), but this is a much smaller bus terminal, and hopefully lessons were learned this time.
Work on station construction was scheduled to begin in Spring 2023.
Rendering of new bus terminal and station entranceSchematic of the TTC station redevelopmentCreateTO development blocks at Bloor and Islington, from 2021 presentationCreate TO conceptual plan for Islington Station site
It is now mid-June 2023, and for now, there is no sign of work. Inside the station, there are no signs informing customers of impending construction, even if only to reassure passengers that the decrepit conditions are being addressed.
The many delays at Islington Station are also indictive of the difficulties of redeveloping even city-owned properties for new, much needed housing. It won’t be until 2026 — at the earliest — that new development can take place.
Until then, TTC customers must put up with a rapidly deteriorating station.
This section of the LRT, planned last decade, was narrowly rejected by Brampton City Council in a 6-5 vote, with then-mayor Linda Jeffrey supporting the transit line’s construction. Unfortunately, six city councillors sided with several downtown merchants and affluent Main Street South residents (including former premier Bill Davis), who did not support a surface tram on Main Street, back in October 2015.
In 2019, a newly elected council, led by a new mayor, Patrick Brown, was willing to revisit the LRT decision, again backing a direct Main Street alignment. City staff were directed to update the original, approved 2014 Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). In 2021, staff narrowed the alternatives to just two options: an all-surface alignment from Steeles Avenue to the GO station in Downtown Brampton, and an underground option between Nanwood Avenue and the rail corridor. Meanwhile, Brampton staff and elected officials tried, without success, to restore the north-side LRT terminal at Steeles Avenue/Gateway Terminal.
Now that the 30% design work for the two options is complete, city officials must decide how to proceed, especially if they expect senior levels of government to cover the costs of this major transit project.
The alignments
The all-surface alignment three stops in each direction between the Gateway Terminal at Steeles Avenue and the Brampton GO Station: at Charolais Boulevard, Nanwood Drive, and split northbound and southbound stops between Wellington and Queen Streets. These stop locations match the existing 502 Züm Main stops on this section of Main Street.
Between Nanwood Drive and Wellington Street, the LRT would operate in dedicated lanes, with general traffic in the outer two lanes. There would not be room for bicycle lanes, and left turns would be prohibited at non-signalized intersections. North of Wellington, the LRT would run in mixed traffic, with cycle tracks and widened sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The preferred surface alignment
The northern terminus would be on the GO Station property, on the west side of Main Street, in a below-grade trench. Stairs and elevators would connect the platform with the GO Station, while the historic 1907 station building would be moved to support GO train service expansion on the busy CN freight corridor. The street surface would need to be lowered by one metre for the light rail vehicles and the overhead wire to clear the railway underpass.
Alignment of off-street surface LRT alignment on the GO Station property Design concept for the GO and LRT terminal
The tunnel alignment – which was not part of the approved 2014 TPAP – includes the same surface stops at Brampton Gateway Terminal and Charolais Boulevard, and two underground stations, at Nanwood Drive and the terminal, just south of the GO Station. Between Elgin and Nanwood, the tunnel would be dug in the traditional cut-and-cover method while the portion under Etobicoke Creek and the downtown core would be constructed using the sequential excavation method.
The tunnel portal would be located at Elgin Drive, several hundred metres south of Nanwood. The longer tunnel section is required to avoid the Etobicoke Creek floodplains. Though Nanwood Drive has no intersecting transit routes and relatively low density, the rundown Brampton Mall property would be an ideal urban development site, as would the commercial properties immediately to the south.
The preferred tunnel alignment
The downtown terminal station would include a primary access at the corner of Main and Nelson Streets, to provide access to the GO Station and the proposed new transportation hub, as well as a secondary entrance closer to Queen Street and Garden Square.
The two options were compared, putting the tunnel alignment ahead in all categories apart from cost and schedule. The tunnel would allow for continuous cycling infrastructure on Main Street, minimize traffic impacts, while having slightly higher ridership and somewhat faster transit. The tunnel would also better satisfy homeowners and businesses along the corridor. Staff also note that the tunnel alignment, without the bend into the GO station property, would be easier to extend farther north.
As with other transit projects, the costs of delaying this segment of the LRT are subject to inflation. The surface alignment would cost $933 million, while the tunnel route would cost $2.8 billion. The surface option would take one to two fewer years to complete, an important consideration given Brampton’s fast-growing transit ridership and delays on other complex LRT projects, such as the Eglinton-Crosstown line.
Cost comparisons for the tunnel and surface alignments
The Pitch
Towards the end of the staff report is a section called “Funding Advocacy.” Staff rightfully point out the need for the LRT extension, given the city’s and the province’s goals of directing high density development to the downtown core and other transit station areas, as well as the city’s record of continuous ridership growth and transit improvements.
They also point out that the funding that Brampton is seeking (for the Queen Street BRT project and the LRT, specifically the tunnel option) is comparable to other transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The table below compares the costs and funding sought for Brampton’s proposed projects to those funded and underway in Toronto and Hamilton.
Table comparing costs, funding and system ridership for Toronto, Hamilton, and Brampton
An appendix to the staff report compares the cost of the tunnel option with other tunnelled Ontario projects (the Scarborough Subway Extension, the Ontario Line, the Eglinton-Crosstown), and the surface alignment with other surface projects (Finch West LRT, Hamilton LRT, Ion LRT extension in Cambridge).
Concluding thoughts
It is still a shame that Brampton City Council put the interests of a small, but affluent, minority of voters first back in 2015-2016. Had they not prevailed, the LRT into Downtown Brampton would have been under construction right now – at the same time that critical water infrastructure is being replaced in Downtown Brampton, and we would be looking forward to it being open in just two years. However, just three of the eleven council members that voted on the LRT in 2015-2016 remain at Brampton City Hall, and two of those three councillors supported the original project.
The arguments in favour of the tunnel are enticing: a faster transit ride though a congested part of the city, an appeal to provincial and federal governments that have historically short-changed Brampton on its infrastructure needs, in a city that will have six seats up for grabs in the next elections.
However, a surface LRT will be quicker and much cheaper to build. I also do not see the need for further extensions northward, at least via Main Street, and even then, it would require a second tunnel portal somewhere near Vodden Street, adding at least $1 billion to future costs. The GO station terminal points towards the abandoned Orangeville-Brampton Railway, which could provide a good alignment northward from Downtown Brampton, even with a parallel cycling path.
More than anything, I want to see the Hurontario-Main LRT completed to Downtown Brampton as soon as possible, especially as work progresses on all-day hourly train service between Toronto and Kitchener and revitalization and intensification of Downtown Brampton accelerates.
The provincial government has signaled that they prefer the surface alignment for cost reasons (notwithstanding it spending billions of dollars on an unnecessary tunnel on Eglinton West in Etobicoke), as does the Brampton Board of Trade. It is also worth noting that this study is only at the 30% design phase, detailed engineering work may find further costs.
The surface option was the right choice in 2015, and it remains the right choice today. This time, maybe, Brampton will get it right.
Across Canada, our biggest cities are building new transit. Here in Toronto, the Crosstown and Finch West LRTs are well underway (though the first phase of the Eglinton-Crosstown is already three years late), as well as the Scarborough subway expansion, the Ontario Line, and GO Transit corridor improvements. Vancouver is building a major expansion to its Skytrain network, the Broadway Subway. Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton are all expanding their LRT networks. And in Montreal, the first phase of the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) will open for service, while major work on the Blue Line Métro extension has just begun.
While Greater Montreal has been busy with rail transit projects, it has also opened two new busways: on Boulevard Le Corbusier in Laval, and on Boulevard Pie-IX on Montreal’s east side. The Laval busway was completed in late 2017. The SRB Pie-IX corridor was mostly completed by the end of 2022, though a section near Boulevard Jean-Talon remains under construction for the Blue Line Métro extension.
Laval’s Boulevard Le Corbusier
Looking south on Le Corbusier at Boul. Saint-Martin
Laval, a sprawling suburban municipality immediately north of Montreal Island, has a population of over 400,000. Though the large island has several historical town and village centres, the municipality is mostly made up of suburban subdivisions, shopping centres, low-rise apartment buildings, crisscrossed by several autoroute highways, including the A-13, A-15, A-19, A-25, and A-440. Despite the post-war sprawl and auto infrastructure, the far eastern end of the island remains largely agricultural.
After the extension of the Orange Line Métro into Laval in 2007, the city of Laval has worked towards urbanizing its geographical centre into “Centre-Ville Laval.” Laval’s new downtown core would consist of new and expanded educational institutions, new cultural and entertainment venues, office and high-tech employment, along with new higher-density, urban-scaled residential development. The new city centre would be focused on Boulevard Le Corbusier northward from Montmorency Métro Station, in an area lined with aging commercial properties.
During my March visit to Laval, some of the progress on Centre-Ville Laval was evident. A new sports and concert venue, Place Bell, opened in 2017, luring the Montreal Canadiens’ AHL affliate from St. John’s. (Place Bell should not be confused with Centre Bell, the home of the Canadiens, also located on the Orange Line). The Université de Montréal also opened a suburban campus next to the Métro station. Slowly, mid-ride condo buildings were built on the south end of Le Corbusier, within walking distance from the campuses and transit links.
New residential development on the south end of Boul. Le Corbusier, in the near distance
To support the planned growth of Laval’s city centre, a new busway was built northward, towards the massive Carrefour Laval shopping centre, a Cadillac Fairview-owned mall that dominates Montreal’s north suburbs. The busway passes between older, smaller shopping malls, such as Centre Laval and Galleries Laval, which will one day get redeveloped. Building the new busway, along with semi-protected cycling lanes, was clearly a way of indicating the municipality’s urban planning goals.
Unfortunately, the Laval busway reminded me of the things I disliked most about York Region’s Viva Rapidways. For one, the Laval busway doesn’t speed up bus service. It is only one kilometre long, and does not properly connect with either the bus terminal at Montmorency Métro or the bus terminal across the street from Carrefour Laval. Buses must re-enter mixed traffic at both ends of the route. As in Toronto and York Region, left-turning cars are prioritized at each traffic light, and there was no apparent transit priority.
The median bus stops are also difficult to get to. Despite many days since Montreal’s last significant snowfall, and bone-dry sidewalks and roadways, the curbs and crosswalks were left uncleared. This forces pedestrians to either mount the piles of old, packed, crusty snow, or divert into the roadways to cross the street. The bike lanes were merely a convenient snow storage space.
Laval should be embarrassed by its inaccessible crosswalks and bus infrastructure
For a Saturday morning, transit service on the busway was adequate, but not especially impressive. The Société de transport de Laval, the municipal transit agency, operates a free shuttle bus on weekends, holidays, and summer weekdays between Montmorency Métro and Carrefour Laval every 20 minutes. Otherwise, bus service was sporadic despite multiple routes using the busway: two or three buses would come at once, followed by a gap of 10 or 15 minutes.
Quebec’s unique traffic signals were both interesting for out-of-province visitors and frustrating for pedestrians. In Ontario and most other jurisdictions, a right green arrow indicates absolute right-of-way for right-turning motorists. In Quebec, it merely indicates that motorists have a green signal to turn right, regardless of conflicting movements. Outside of Montreal, motorists are permitted to turn right on a red light, unless signed otherwise. This is not great signalization, especially on high-speed suburban roadways.
Right-turning motorists have the green arrow to turn right, conflicting with pedestrians (which have the walk signal) and cyclists
However, bus signals are unmistakable from general traffic signals, with white bar aspects (and a white triangle instead of an amber light). That’s one thing that is done better than here in Ontario.
Montreal’s SRB Pie-IX
Looking south on Boul. Pie-IX from Rue Bélanger
The SRB (BRT) corridor on Montreal’s Boulevard Pie-IX, which I visited later the same day, was a welcome contrast to Laval’s implementation. Boulevard Pie-IX (named for Pope Pius IX, the founder of the dogma of papal infallibility), is a wide north-south boulevard on Montreal’s east side, passing through Hochalaga, past Olympic Stadium and the Botanical Gardens, all the way into Laval. It’s a busy bus corridor, feeding into the Métro Green Line as well as the future extension of the Blue Line to Anjou.
The intersection of Pie-IX and Jean-Talon, where a new Métro station is under construction
The 439 SRB route parallels the local 139 Pie-IX bus, and like other median busways, passengers board and exit at stops at the far side of the intersection. Though there is no fare pre-payment, passengers are permitted to board at rear doors with a valid Opus card or ticket. Shelters are simple, but the stained green glass lines up nicely with the gaps where the bus doors open.
Inside a SRB shelter
Unlike median busways elsewhere in Ontario or Quebec, buses are not slowed down by left-turning motorists as left turns are prohibited along the entire SRB corridor. This simplifies operations, allows for easier transit priority, and reduces the space required at intersections for dedicated left turn lanes. Unlike Laval, the crosswalks in Montreal were cleared and easy to traverse in winter.
Left turns are banned along the entire SRB corridor. Note the triangle light on the bus signal.
The current bus rapid transit alignment replaces an older, more dangerous set up where there was a central median where the inner lane was dedicated to buses in the opposite peak (contraflow) direction during weekday rush hours. Buses assigned to Pie-IX were equipped with special flashing arrows to warn oncoming motorists, along with overhead lights indicating the lane restriction. After several serious collisions, the arrangement was abandoned.
2009 Google Streetview image of the old Pie-IX express bus arrangement, where buses in the AM peak used the leftmost northbound lane to travel south, stopping at the median shelter. In the PM peak, northbound buses used the rightmost southbound lane.
Once again, Montreal shows how buses can be sped up without compromising safety or road space. Restricting left turns along the entire corridor was the right choice, and a solution that should be considered along some of Toronto’s busiest bus corridors as well.
Finally, rapid transit corridors on arterial roads are reliant on walk-up traffic, and should therefore be as easy and safe as possible to walk up to the transit service. This means effective and quick snow removal at crosswalks, pedestrian priority (there should be no beg buttons to push to access BRT/LRT stops), and proper pedestrian infrastructure and a walkable realm. The Viva Rapidways and the Laval Boul. Le Corbusier fail this basic criteria, while Montreal does a better job.
As Greater Toronto area plans more arterial LRT and BRT corridors, such as on Dundas Street in Mississauga/Oakville, and on Queen Street in Brampton, it would be wise to put transit and active transportation first, even if it means sacrificing a few left turn lanes.
But in January 2023, I returned to Bramalea GO Station and came away feeling satisfied. Metrolinx has finally built a Bramalea GO Station that works. Now it is time to use the rebuilt station to its full potential.
Pittsburgh Regional Transit Red Line train in the Brookline neighbourhood
In 2022, with travel restrictions eased, I had the opportunity to take several road trips throughout the Northeast and Midwestern states, from New York and Maryland to Kentucky and Michigan. Previously on this site, I wrote about my visit to Philadelphia’s Rail Park, a lesser-known, yet ambitious project to repurpose former Reading Railroad corridors in the city’s north end. I also wrote about Dayton’s trolley bus network, which, if operated to its full potential, could be a model for electrifying transit across North America.
In this post, I write about some of the other interesting transit services in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia that I visited on my travels late last year, including a personal rapid transit prototype, the remnants of a huge legacy streetcar system transformed into a modern light rail line, bus rapid transit lines, and a new streetcar service I last visited while under construction in 2015. I even got to ride TANK.
Cleveland
Cleveland Red Line train on one of the many bridges spanning the Cuyahoga River and the Flats. The arched double-decked bridge beyond the Rapid train once carried a streetcar subway into Downtown Cleveland from the west.
I visited Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Dayton in September 2022.
Cleveland, like most American cities, once had an expansive streetcar and interurban tram network. The city streetcars lasted until the early 1950s (its PCCs were acquired by the TTC), though the separate Shaker Heights Rapid Transit, which also used PCCs, continued in service.
The Cleveland system, made up of the heavy-rail Red Line, and the light-rail Blue and Green Lines (the former Shaker Heights services), run almost entirely on the surface, largely adjacent to railway rights-of-way. The Red Line, built between the 1930s and 1960s, was North America’s first airport rail link when that extension opened in 1968. Unfortunately, the service suffers from low ridership, so it operates in two-car trains, every 15 minutes during daytime hours.
A Greater Cleveland RTA light rail vehicle heads eastbound from Downtown Cleveland, headed towards Shaker Heights. Terminal Tower in the centre background.
The Red Line follows an old passenger railway alignment into Terminal Tower, the massive transportation hub, office tower, and commercial development on Public Square. The complex included a hotel, Higbee’s Department Store (made famous by its appearance in A Christmas Story) and local and intercity train platforms. With the decline of passenger rail, the trains moved to a much smaller station on the waterfront, and the Higbee’s store later became a casino.
Both the Red Line and the former Shaker Heights light rail lines share the same tracks east of Downtown Cleveland, and both services run on overhead catenary.
As the Red Line doesn’t follow city streets, Cleveland built a bus rapid transit line, branded “The HealthLine” on Euclid Avenue between Public Square and East Cleveland. The HealthLine is sponsored by the University Hospital and Cleveland Clinic health care corporations which it serves along with Case Western University and the art and cultural institutions clustered east of Downtown.
HealthLine bus with left-side doors
Though the HealthLine operates with special articulated buses with doors on both sides (to serve dedicated median stations, like that shown below), dedicated bus lanes are limited, and buses do not enjoy signal priority. However, the route is frequent and reliable, which is better than most urban bus services in the United States.
HealthLine bus on Euclid Avenue in Downtown Cleveland
Cincinnati
Cincinnati Connector
Like Cleveland, Cincinnati once had a large streetcar network, with trams also feeding into the city from communities in Northern Kentucky. Cincinnati abandoned its streetcars in the early 1950s, with the TTC acquiring its old PCC fleet.
The last time I visited Cincinnati, in January 2015, work had started on a new urban streetcar line that would connect its waterfront, the sports stadiums, the central downtown core, and the Over-the-Rhine area, a gentrifying neighbourhood north of the city core.
Like the modern urban streetcars in Atlanta, Detroit, Kansas City, and Portland, Cincinnati’s Connector serves a small area on a route practically geared to young urban residents and visitors. Though I came away with positive impressions of Kansas City’s streetcar (which is undergoing a lengthy extension), I felt that Cincinnati’s streetcar — like Atlanta’s and Detroit’s — was too slow, too infrequent, and too short to be of great use. At least the service was free to use.
Junction to yet-to-be-built extension to University of Cincinnati
One thing I did note is that, unlike Toronto’s busy — and useful — legacy streetcar network, the small Cincinnati Connector loop was built with modern tram standards. The few switches (like the one shown above) are double-point switches, with dedicated signals. This allows streetcars to pass intersections at normal speed, unlike the TTC’s insistence on stopping and then proceeding at a dead slow pace over its manual, single-point track switches.
As a Torontonian, where streetcars form the backbone of transit in the dense, urban downtown area, it’s frustrating to see a small, novelty streetcar line build proper track infrastructure, while our crowded trams are forced to crawl at every intersection because of indifference at the TTC and at City Hall.
A Cincinnati Bell Connector Streetcar, followed by a SORTA bus
One of the amusing oddities of transit in the Cincinnati area are the acronyms used by the two local agencies. Cincinnati and the surrounding Ohio municipalities are served by the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, or SORTA. The agency wisely uses “Metro” as its public brand. Covington and other Kentucky communities are served by the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky, or TANK. To their credit, the two agencies cooperate on fares, a $5 day pass purchased on one bus is good for all regular services on both agencies. Many TANK routes enter Downtown Cincinnati as well.
Pittsburgh
In late October, my spouse and I visited Pittsburgh to attend a conference. Pittsburgh has one of North America’s most fascinating cityscapes, with the downtown core situated where the Allegheny and Monongahela join to form the Ohio River, with steep hills immediately to the north and south. The steep topography is the main reason why Pittsburgh maintained two historic incline railways, where many other cities (including Hamilton) abandoned theirs.
The Duquesne Incline, on a very bright autumn afternoon
Pittsburgh was also a leading operator of PCC streetcars until the late 1960s, with a fleet of 666 PCCs — North America’s third-largest — at its peak. Because of Pittsburgh’s many hills, often requiring private rights-of-way or tunnels for streetcars to serve outlying areas, Pittsburgh was late to abandoning its street railway, but with highway projects in the 1950s, a public takeover in the 1960s, declining ridership, and a desire to modernize, most of the lines were abandoned and replaced by buses by 1971. Only a few South Hills lines, which used a lengthy tunnel to access Downtown Pittsburgh, remained.
Red Line train in Beechview
The two core southern lines were gradually upgraded to light rail standards, with a downtown tunnel replacing the on-street trackage there. Only a short section of Red Line in Beechview still operates on-street, betraying the service’s streetcar legacy. In 2012, the downtown subway was extended north under the Allegheny River to serve the North Shore, particularly the baseball and football stadiums.
Steel Plaza Station, part of the Downtown Subway
In the 1980s, the Port Authority of Allegheny County, the public agency tasked with operating the city’s transit system, designed and built several busways radiating out of the city centre. Like Ottawa’s Transitway before construction of the Confederation Line LRT, the Pittsburgh busways follow former or current railway rights-of-way, with grade-separated road crossings, and with on-street operation in the downtown core. The busways offer rapid transit service, though stations are quite simple, with at-grade pedestrian crossings at most locations and basic shelters.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (East) Busway, Swissvale
Pittsburgh’s problem though is that the busways and LRT managed to avoid the main university campuses and many of the city’s most vibrant neighbourhoods. Oakwood, the home of University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, many of the city’s arts and cultural institutions and some of its densest neighbourhoods, has only local bus service. Not coincidentally, Oakwood was one of the last parts of Pittsburgh to lose its streetcars in 1967.
South of Pittsburgh, streetcars operate on an abandoned interurban line near Washington, Pennsylvania. Unlike the Halton County Radial Railway, the Washington interurban line’s tracks were not yet removed when the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum was formed. The museum, which operates several streetcars and hosts a large collection of static displays, is well worth the visit.
Former Pittsburgh Railway Company trolley #4398 carries autumn crowds at the museum in Washington, PA. Behind is a former Philadelphia Suburban Lines (Red Arrow) trolley.
Morgantown, West Virginia
Only a 90-minute drive south of Pittsburgh is the city of Morgantown, West Virginia, home of the sprawling West Virginia University. What makes the public university especially unique is the automated transit system that serves the university and connects it to Downtown Morgantown.
The one-of-a-kind Morgantown PRT, opened in 1975, has five stations between Downtown Morgantown and the main campus to the north. What makes the line a “personal” rapid transit system is passengers, upon paying the fare or swiping their university ID card, select their destination station, and wait for a car that will take them to their desired point, skipping any stations in between. Though the technology can be described as a “gadgetbahn” it fills a unique niche, and still runs with the original rolling stock and guideways, though software and motor upgrades were required. Because of the limited road space between Morgantown and the university facilities to the north and the mountainous topology of West Virginia, traditional bus service gets caught in traffic, especially on game days.
Walnut Street Station in Downtown Morgantown
Each car has eight seats and allows for twelve standees, so despite the name, the service isn’t precisely “personal.” As it is operated by the university mostly for staff and students, it does not run on Sundays, holidays, or when classes are not in session. During off-peak periods, the PRT usually runs in an all-stops configuration.
The video below shows how the PRT operates, including the bypass of Towers Station.
Part of the nine-minute ride on the Morgantown PRT at the University of West Virginia
I will follow up with posts covering my return to Toronto, Ohio (which is just an hour’s drive west of Pittsburgh), and some thoughts after visiting a local history museum.
The last train left Timmins Station in 1990. Today, it serves as a bus terminal for local and Ontario Northland buses
Northeastern Ontario got an early Christmas gift from the provincial government on December 15, 2022. On that day, the province announced the purchase of three new trainsets for the restoration of passenger rail service to North Bay, Timmins, and points in between.
Prior to 1990, there were two daily trains between Toronto and Northeastern Ontario: the daytime Northlander, which ran between Toronto, North Bay, and Timmins daily except Saturdays, and the daily overnight Northland, which continued north to Cochrane and Kapuskasing, with a bus connection to Timmins.
The Northland, which was operated with VIA equipment, was cut as part of a devastating slash to VIA’s budget by the federal Progressive Conservative government. Other trains cut in 1990 included the daily train services from Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal to Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. The remaining train service between Cochrane and Northern Quebec soon followed.
The only train service left in Northern Ontario were remote services still provided by VIA Rail (the local Sudbury-White River RDC train and the transcontinental Canadian, reduced to three days a week and rerouted on the more remote CN mainline), Algoma Central between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst, the Polar Bear Express/Little Bear service to Moosonee, and the 6 days/week Northlander service between Toronto and Cochrane, which was re-routed from Timmins (though a bus connection at Matheson was maintained).
A railway overpass, completed shortly before its abandonment, crosses Highway 101 (Algonquin Avenue) towards Downtown Timmins, with the station building in the distance. A Timmins Transit bus lays over at the terminal.
With the passenger service gone, the tracks through the urban areas of Timmins were quickly removed. The old railway right-of-way in Schumacher, a mining town just east of Downtown Timmins, became the new route of Highway 101, bypassing the old main street, hastening Schumacher’s decline. The station in Timmins was repurposed as a bus terminal for Ontario Northland and Timmins Transit.
The old route of Highway 101 through Schumacher
In 2012, the Northlander, which used refurbished former GO Transit single-deck railcars, was cut by the provincial Liberal government, citing declining ridership and high subsidies ($400 per passenger). The train also required an auxiliary power unit, as Ontario Northland used only freight locomotives.
The southbound Northlander arriving at Gravenhurst in 2012. The auxiliary power unit is immediately behind the locomotive.
The new trainsets will be the first time in generations that Ontario Northland won’t be using second-hand passenger cars. In the 1970s, Ontario Northland acquired used Trans-Europe Express (TEE) trainsets from Nederlandse Spoorwegen. Though the cars were modern by Canadian standards, the motive power proved unsatisfactory in winter weather and were replaced by older EMD FP7 engines. In 1992, the ageing TEE cars were replaced by the refurbished GO Transit cars.
Like the old TEE trainsets, the new Siemens trainsets will operate in a semi-permanent configuration, with a Siemens Charger locomotive at one end and a combined passenger/control car at the other end, similar to how the new VIA Rail trains will operate. The Siemens Charger locomotives are used by several passenger services in North America, including Amtrak, Brightline, and VIA, while the Siemens Venture cars are very similar to those being delivered to VIA.
The proposed paint scheme, depicted in a government release below, evokes the old TEE paint scheme, with the modern colours used by Ontario Northland.
Rendering of the new Northlander trainsets (Ontario Government press release, 17 December 2022)
The revived Northlander service will operate between Toronto and Timmins, with a rail or bus connection to Cochrane, the southern terminal of the Polar Bear Express train to Moosonee. There will be new train stops north of Toronto at Langstaff GO Station (where there are connections to York Region Transit and frequent GO buses on the Highway 407 corridor) and Gormley, a station site with far less connectivity.
The trouble, however, is the Timmins terminus. Though the new Siemens trainsets are double-ended and will not require a wye to change directions, most of the track in Timmins has been torn up. As explained earlier, the track into downtown has been partially built upon, and the current end of track is 13 kilometres to the east of central Timmins, on Highway 101 in the small community of Porcupine.
Schematic of the proposed Timmins Station and service shedfrom the Updated Business Case.Highway 101 is at bottom left.
This is where the new station is projected to be built.
Looking towards the end of track on Falcon Street, Porcupine
The Porcupine area has local transit service, a Timmins Transit bus that serves Schumacher, South Porcupine, and Porcupine every 30-60 minutes. The proposed station site is about the same driving distance from the city centre as Timmins Airport, which offers direct air service to Pearson and Toronto Island airports.
According to the business case, the estimated annual ridership for the restored rail service by 2041 is 39,220 to 60,110. Assuming a train in each direction, six days a week, this will mean only 63 to 96 passengers per train, the capacity of just two coach buses, at only a marginally faster speed than the existing Ontario Northland motor coach service. A significant benefit of rail over bus is the reliability in winter conditions, certainly important for Northern Ontario, bus without significant investment in the track infrastructure, it is hard to find much in the way of improvements to the intercity network as a whole. Restoration of the Northlander still does not support travel to Sudbury, the largest community in Northeastern Ontario with the most important medical centre in that part of the province.
At least the Northlander will get new, reliable equipment for once that will be easier to maintain and obtain parts for. As it is essentially the same equipment as VIA and Amtrak’s new fleets, should the Northlander fail to meet even the meagre ridership projections in the business case documents, the equipment will certainly find new use elsewhere.
I wish I could be more upbeat about the future of passenger rail in Northern Ontario, an area that deserves reliable, useful intercity transport. The purchase of new rolling equipment is a positive development, but without significant improvements to track speeds, a more convenient Timmins terminus, and a complete transport plan for the entire region that can help build train ridership and support communities elsewhere in Northern Ontario, the renewed Northlander will suffer the same fate as the last iteration.
Correction: the Cochrane-Senneterre train lasted a little bit longer past the 1990 VIA Rail cuts.
Curb lanes closed for condominium construction have defeated the purpose of Jarvis Street’s fifth reversible lane
Over a century ago, Jarvis Street was Toronto’s most fashionable address, and home to prominent families including the Masseys, who made their wealth from the farm equipment industry, and whose names live on through Massey Hall, Hart House, the Fred Victor Mission, and Massey College. The wide boulevards allowed for lush street trees to flourish, and without streetcars, there was no need for a wide roadway, despite the generous right-of-way.
Jarvis Street looking south towards Carlton Street in the 1880s. City of Toronto Archives: Fonds 1478, Item 12.
By the 1920s, though, Jarvis was no longer fashionable, with Forest Hill, North Rosedale, and Moore Park taking its place. Many of the old mansions fell into disrepair or were converted into apartments or businesses. The street became lined with low-rise apartment buildings, budget hotels, and missions to the poor and unhoused. After the Second World War, the city government decided to extend Mount Pleasant Road south of St. Clair Avenue to Bloor and Jarvis Streets and widen Jarvis Street to accommodate the increased traffic. Along with building the Dundas Street East extension, widening Dufferin Street, and pushing through Eastern Avenue, the City of Toronto was bending to the whims of the automobile, several years before the creation of Metropolitan Toronto in 1954.
Jarvis Street looking north from Carlton Street, January 1947, just before the street trees were removed and the street widened. City of Toronto Archives, Series 372, Item 1725.
By the 1960s, Jarvis Street became the preferred address of federal institutions such as the Moss Park Armoury, the regional Unemployment Insurance offices at Dundas Street, and the brutalist Ontario headquarters for the RCMP. The provincial government expanded the old Juvenile Court with a new modernist building, and Simpsons-Sears, the predecessor of Sears Canada, built a new imposing office building at 222 Jarvis, adjacent to the Simpsons warehouse on Mutual Street.
Victorian rowhouses stand next to the brutalist RCMP building on Jarvis Street, north of Shuter Street in 1979. The RCMP building later became the home of the Grand Hotel, which installed a glass veneer over the imposing west façade. The Unemployment Insurance office, at the corner of Dundas Street appears in the far left. Both the RCMP/Grand Hotel and the UIC (later Hilton Garden Inn) building were recently demolished, but the rowhouses still stand. Photo by Harvey R. Naylor. City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1526, File 61, Item 27.
Jarvis Street was also the home of several of the CBC’s scattered radio and television studio spaces until they were consolidated at the CBC Broadcasting Centre on Front Street, and it was also the location of the first Four Seasons Hotel, when it started out as a chic motor hotel.
Jarvis Street looking south from north of Carlton Street; the Four Seasons Motor Hotel at 415 Jarvis Street and St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church are visible in the background. Note the centre lane indicator above. Creator: Skinner, Dorothea Skinner. City of Toronto Archives Fonds 492, Item 170.
By the early 1960s, Jarvis Street was reconfigured further to include a new reversible centre lane between Queen Street and Mount Pleasant Road at Charles Street. Then, as now, the centre lane was designated for southbound traffic, except during weekday afternoon rush hour, when the flow is reversed. Parking is prohibited at all times on the east side of the street, while on the west side, street parking is permitted except during the morning and afternoon peak periods. This, at least in theory, allows for two lanes of unobstructed traffic in both directions at all times, and in the rush hours, three lanes of peak-direction traffic. This, of course, depended on strict enforcement of parking and stopping prohibitions, and the lack of construction or other obstructions.
As Jarvis Street rebounded and new residential development and commercial development began to line the street between the mid-1980s and the present day, the five-lane traffic arterial layout became less suitable. In 2009, City of Toronto staff recommended, with extensive public input, that it was desirable to remove the reversible centre lane, narrow the roadway, and widen the sidewalk on the east side of the street to improve the public realm and address the needs of the thousands of new residents who were moving into the east end of Downtown Toronto. The additional space would have allowed for tree planters and wayfinding signage that would highlight the street’s history. Studies conducted by city staff found that there was no need for the fifth lane to provide adequate traffic movement along the street.
Cyclists, however, were unhappy that the road redesign did not include cycling lanes and they were able to convince council to alter its plans. As a result, in 2010, the road was not reconstructed, but the reversible lane was removed, with new painted cycle lanes on both sides of the street.
When Toronto elected Rob Ford as mayor that October, he promised an end to “the war on the car,” even inviting now-disgraced hockey commentator Don Cherry to give the inaugural speech, which turned out to be a controversial rant against “pinko cyclists” and “left wing kooks.” In 2011, with the support of suburban councillors, Rob Ford reversed the decision to install bike lanes on Jarvis Street (along with Pharmacy Avenue and Birchmount Road in Scarborough), and the reversible lane was re-installed.
Ironically, the demand by cyclists for bike lanes made it easy to restore the auto-oriented configuration, while widened sidewalks would have been much more difficult to remove.
Between Dundas and Gerrard Street, the lanes shift to accommodate a lane closure for a new condominium tower on the east side of Jarvis Street.
With much needed watermain and road reconstruction in the last few years, the traffic advantage provided by the reversible lane was negated because of the construction barriers. Several condominium towers being constructed along the street, at Carlton, Gerrard, and Shuter Streets, have further affected the ability of that fifth lane to move motorists quickly, effectively, or safely. Between Dundas and Gerrard Streets, the lanes temporarily shift for a long-term lane closure on the east side, just south of Gerrard. This lane shift adds additional confusion to an already confusing road layout.
Looking north to Shuter Street, with the curb lane temporarily marked for right turns only.
At Shuter Street, the construction of the Hyatt Place hotel and condominium apartment development has seen the northbound curb lane closed for several years. Approaching Shuter, the curb lane is marked as a right-turn lane, but it is used as an illegal bypass of traffic waiting at the light or turning left onto Shuter towards St. Michael’s Hospital and the Eaton Centre. This, combined with the hidden sightlines caused by the construction hoarding on the northeast corner, makes it especially dangerous for southbound motorists as well as pedestrians and cyclists crossing at this point. Beyond the construction hoarding, the right lane is used for construction crew parking, as well as staging for vehicles such as cement trucks.
Looking down towards the Hyatt Place development, showing the obstructed northbound curb lane, as well as a grey SUV crossing into the centre lane, which was reserved for opposing traffic when this photo was taken.
The long-term closure of lanes on Jarvis Street should make it clear to city officials that the outdated and unsafe middle lane is of no practical use, and it finally has got to go.
At Jarvis and Shuter Streets, the northbound right turn lane is used by impatient motorists, including a City of Toronto garbage truck, a taxi cab, and the driver of a speeding Lincoln Navigator.
Collisions are common on Jarvis Street because of the reversible centre lane — which exists nowhere else in Toronto, and in only a few places elsewhere in Canada — because of driver confusion, impatience, negligence and incompetence. As Jarvis Street becomes home to thousands of more residents in the next few years, is beyond time that the street becomes safer and more attractive to live, work, and enjoy life on.
Dayton, Ohio is probably best known as the hometown of Wilbur and Orville Wright, the two bicycle mechanics who made the first successful controlled heavier-than-air flight. The city has remained a centre of the aviation industry. The US Air Force (and its predecessors) have operated a major base in Dayton for over a century, which includes an impressive museum of military aviation history.
But among transit buffs, Dayton is notable for another reason. It is one of only a handful of cities in North America that continues to operate and maintain an electric trolley bus system. The Greater Dayton RTA is also the smallest transit system to have operated trolleys since the mid 1970s.
Though there were early adopters of “trackless trolleys” in the late 1910s and early 1920s, the technology was particularly popular between the late 1930s and early 1950s. For street railway operators burdened with ageing streetcars and worn out infrastructure, electric trolleys offered several advantages. They could make continued use of electric substations, poles, and overhead wires, without the need for maintaining tracks and rights-of-way. Trolley buses were quiet and smooth-running, unlike gasoline and early diesel buses, and had larger capacities. They were cheap to operate and easy to maintain, and were especially adept at climbing steep grades.
TTC trolley bus on Ossington Avenue in the 1950s. The Ossington trolley was established as part of a major post-war route restructuring.
Most of the big cities in Canada and the US continued operating streetcars into at least the 1950s, as newer PCC streetcars helped keep those fleets going. But trolley buses were ideal for smaller and midsized cities that still had robust transit demand that buses could not yet meet. Even cities that retained streetcars into the 1950s — like Toronto — used trolley buses to replace marginal streetcar lines and allow for major route restructurings.
In Canada, fourteen cities established trolley bus fleets between 1936 and 1951. In Halifax, the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company replaced its decrepit streetcar system and its feeder bus network with an all-electric fleet in 1949; at the system’s peak, there was even a trolley route across the Macdonald Bridge to Dartmouth. Cities as small as Cornwall and Port Arthur/Fort William (now Thunder Bay) even replaced their streetcars with trolley buses.
By the 1970s, the coach bodies purchased 30 years earlier were showing their age, and many agencies had decided to simplify their fleets and go with modern diesel buses, which had improved in size, power, and capacity since the 1940s. In Canada, only Toronto, Hamilton, Edmonton, and Vancouver decided to renew their fleets, while only five cities in the United States (Boston, Dayton, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle) kept their electric trolley systems. Since then, Hamilton, Toronto, Edmonton — and most recently, Boston — gave up when the latest generation of trolleys were due for replacement.
But of all places, the small, deindustrialized city of Dayton took a very different direction. In 2020, the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) received the last of its 45 new Kiepe/Gillig Next Generation trolley buses, equipped with large, powerful battery packs and computer systems that allow for long-distance, full speed off-wire capability. (The previous generation of trolleys, like what Translink in Vancouver currently operates, allow only for limited, low-speed off-wire operation).
The new NexGen trolley on Third Street on Dayton’s West SideA trolley on Route 4 running with its poles down. I captured this photo just after getting off the bus on September 16, 2022.
The extended off-wire capability has allowed the GDRTA to extend two of its trolley bus routes further into the suburbs without extending wire. Route 7 was extended 5 kilometres northwest, while Route 1 was extended 6 kilometres east to Wright State University. Though the corridors were already served by longer-distance diesel bus routes, it provided additional service to some of Dayton’s major suburban trip generators.
North Main Street at Elm Hill Drive, where the Route 7 trolley wire ends (note the “poles down” sign), but trolley buses can continue another 5 kilometres onward.
Unfortunately, despite the new fleet and plenty of wire to run it, the GDRTA has only been operating its trolley buses on a single route in the last few months, despite four routes being fully capable of electric service. When I visited Dayton on September 15, not a single trolley was out. Though I did go visit the US Air Force Museum and the Wright Brothers National Historic Site (where one of the brothers’ bicycle shops were preserved on site; the family home and another of their shops were moved to Henry Ford’s Greenfield Village), I was really disappointed. But having a car, and a hotel reservation less than an hour away, I went back the next morning to see these new vehicles in action and take a ride.
A line up of diesel buses, including the trolley-capable Route 7, in Downtown Dayton, just south of the main bus terminal on September 15, 2022. Note the trolley wire, completely unused.
Happily, Route 4 was operating with trolleys, though on a Saturday schedule, imposed by GDRTA because of an ongoing driver shortage that has plagued transit systems across North America. During the daytime, three buses offer 30 minute service on the route. Between Downtown Dayton and the West Side, my first ride that morning was interesting as the bus was operating with its poles down for some reason. But riding the bus, I couldn’t tell: it was a smooth, quiet, and quick jaunt. I took two more trips on Route 4 to the east end, to get the most out of my visit.
A NextGen trolley outbound on Wayne Avenue at East 5th Street, September 16
Despite my disappointment with the GDRTA’s utilization of its fleet, I came away still confident about the technology’s future. Though many transit systems are re-electrifying their bus fleets, they have been purchasing battery-electric fleets that do not have any in-motion charging, unlike Dayton’s advanced trolleys. Some agencies, like the TTC, have battery buses that are charged only at the garages. Other cities, like Brampton, Winnipeg, and Montreal have en-route charging stations at terminal points as well as garage charging points. But bus batteries are extremely heavy, and they have not yet gone through a complete life cycle yet in the harsh Canadian climate.
Brampton Transit electric bus charging at Mount Pleasant Village
The TTC in particular is suited to restoring its trolley network using modern on-wire charging buses like those used in Dayton, as it has much of the infrastructure already in place, including substations (that feed the subway and streetcar network) and existing overhead wire systems. With long-distance off-wire capability, there is no need for complex wire junctions and short-turn loops, unlike older trolleybus networks. Busy, straight routes such as Dufferin and Bathurst would be ideal.
Though Dayton isn’t using its new fleet of electric buses to its potential, it does show the way to renewing sustainable electric transit services for cities like Toronto.
An abandoned railway signal towers over Philadelphia’s Rail Park
On a road trip early this summer, my spouse and I paid a visit to New York and Philadelphia. In New York, we walked the famous High Line, which revitalized an abandoned elevated freight railway corridor, transforming it into a popular grade-separated walking path on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.
New York’s High Line
While in Philadelphia, I made a point of visiting another abandoned rail viaduct — Rail Park. It’s as ambitious as New York’s famed public space, but — for now — it is much less known.
The viaducts, cuts, and tunnels that will make up Philadelphia Rail Park trace their origin to the golden age of railroading. The Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, which connected Philadelphia with its northern and western suburbs, industrial towns to the northwest, and the lucrative anthracite coal fields of northeast Pennsylvania. For many years, the Reading Railroad, as it was known, was one of the United States’ most profitable companies. In 1893, the railway opened its Philadelphia Terminal, which became famous for the public market that was established below the station platforms. To this day, the Reading Terminal Market remains a vital city landmark. In the 1930s, most of the commuter services were electrified.
The 1893 Reading Terminal headhouse, now the entrance to the Pennsylvania Convention Center
By the 1970s, both the Reading and PRR were bankrupt. PRR merged with its New York-Chicago rival New York Central in 1968, before it too went into insolvency. Conrail took over many failing railways in the US Northeast and Midwest, consolidating operations, abandoning or transferring redundant track, and transferring most remaining commuter train operations (which were not assumed by Amtrak) to regional and state transit authorities.
In the mid-1980s, the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA), which assumed control of the regional rail services formerly operated by the PRR and the Reading undertook an ambitious project to unite the separate regional rail systems. A new four-track tunnel was constructed east from PRR’s Suburban Station, and a new station — Market East — built to replace the old Reading Terminal. For the first time, trains could run through central Philadelphia, providing improved regional rail services.
Though the historic Reading Terminal headhouse and the famous market were preserved, the station platforms were removed to make way for a new convention centre. For years, the abandoned viaducts and tunnels leading into Reading Terminal sat unused. At least they did, until June 2018.
Entrance to the first phase of Rail Park, at Noble and 13th Streets
In 2018, a short, initial phase of Rail Park opened to the public. Spanning just two blocks, from Noble and 13th Streets to Callowhill and 11th Streets, it is still a remarkable public space. Like New York’s High Line, the short section of viaduct provides new viewpoints over gritty city streets, with temporary and permanent public art installations along the route.
A map of the proposed extensions of Rail Park, with the opened first phase marked. Interactive map here. Looking north up 13th Street, towards the gentrifying Spring Garden neighbourhood“Workshop of the World” – an interpretive plaque provides information on the industries that lined the Reading Company’s route through PhiladelphiaAn art map of local industries that existed immediately north of Reading Terminal, made from punched Corten steelLooking east to the intersection of Callowhill and 11th Streets. For now, the only fully accessible entrance to Rail Park is at Noble and 13th Streets. The viaduct from the north is visible at left; this will be part of a future phase of Rail Park.A stairway leading up from Callowhill Street. The metal frames at the right hold swings for the public to enjoy.
Future park extensions will continue westward from 13th Street to a below-grade cut starting at Broad Street. It will continue west to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway and the Philadelphia Museum of Art (where the Rocky statue can be found outside), where it will enter a tunnel before emerging at Girard Avenue near Fairmount Park, the greatest of Philadelphia’s urban green spaces. Another section will connect the existing Phase I to the abandoned north-south viaduct between Vine Street and Fairmount Avenue, where the old route to Reading Terminal meets the 1980s rail diversion to Market East Station. Eventually, it will reach 3 miles (5 kilometres) in length.
The formerly abandoned viaduct offers a view of more recently abandoned transit infrastructure: the remnant tracks of the 23-Germantown trolley route, once the longest streetcar line in North America. In the early 1990s, SEPTA was forced to abandon three of its legacy street railway lines due to budget pressures and deteriorating PCC equipment. (Newer Kawasaki-built streetcars were only deployed on the surface-subway routes in West Philadelphia and on the former Red Arrow suburban lines from 69th Street Station.) The 15-Girard Line was later rebuilt with refurbished streetcars, but the 23 and 56-Erie lines were left to rot in a state of “temporary suspension.”
SEPTA has a wealth of transit infrastructure, which I wrote about after my first visit to Philadelphia in 2009, but it hasn’t put enough of it to good use. It has a massive, fully electric regional rail network, yet trains operate only every hour on most routes outside of peak periods. There’s a four-track subway tunnel under Broad Street that’s grossly underused, and unlike Toronto, there are even a few active trolley bus routes. And sadly, it’s allowed much of its infrastructure, like its trolley network, to remain in disuse.
A view down from Rail Park to long-disused trolley tracks on 12th Street
Sean Marshall 