I love maps, especially physical, paper maps. I like to visualize the places I travel to and determine how each city and region’s transit networks work. Though online interactive maps can be very helpful (like the ones I created to show all intercity transport services in Ontarioand across Canada, filling a much-needed gap), there is still nothing like a well-designed static map, especially when it is in print and easily accessible to the public.
This means providing maps that accurately and clearly depict the entire transit system, along with landmarks, connections, and frequency. Los Angeles Metro’s system map does a reasonable job for a map that covers a very large region.
The Los Angeles Metro system map depicts the complex bus and rail network, including non-LA Metro agencies like Culver Citybus and Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus. Colours and line width used to denote operator, service type, and frequency.
Thankfully, most urban transit systems in North America continue to provide proper system maps both on their websites and in print, provided free on request at subway booths or terminal offices. (Some, however, have charged a small fee for a physical copy of their transit maps, such as San Francisco’s Muni.) In Europe, complete transit maps often have to be purchased, such as in Berlin or Vienna.
I recently visited two mid-sized American cities that have done away with physical maps for their transit systems: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Denver, Colorado. In those cities, figuring out how to get around by tram and bus was frustrating, even in an age of Google and Apple maps and transit planning apps accessible to anyone with a smartphone.
Pittsburgh Regional Transit (formerly known as Port Authority Transit) operates a complicated web of bus routes that radiate from the city’s downtown core, along with a few cross-town and feeder routes. There are three busways and a light rail service to the southern suburbs. However, there is no proper system map, either in print or online as PDF or image file that allows the new or casual user to make sense of the network.
The user can then select a service by route name or number in a drop-down tool, but the map itself is difficult to figure out. Zooming in reveals the location of fare vendors and park-and-ride lots, but not important service details like route numbers or service frequency.
Zooming in, park-and-ride lots become the most prominent feature
Even at the neighbourhood level the map is difficult to read. The screenshot below shows Pittsburgh’s Oakland district, home to University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, several other educational institutions, medical centres, parks, museums, and cultural venues. Many bus routes follow Forbes Avenue and Fifth Avenue, but as each route is layered on top of each other, it is difficult to discern where each route runs and where they go.
PRT’s ESRI interactive system map, zoomed into the Oakland District
Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD) also uses ESRI interactive maps to show bus routes (rail services are depicted in a static image map as well). At a small scale, only the light rail and commuter/regional rail services appear, along with transit park-and-ride locations. Denver’s bus system is less complicated than Pittsburgh, operating largely on a grid, but still, a proper map would make it much easier to get a sense of the network.
Zoom in, and bus routes appear, along with route numbers, but there is nothing to show the level of service for each route.
Though online-only interactive maps have their purpose (my Ontario and Canada intercity maps are designed to show where connections exist, or not, and how to obtain schedule information), they are not well suited for urban transit systems and are very difficult to read on a mobile device. Properly designed static maps, in web image or PDF format do much better jobs.
It is worth comparing Pittsburgh and Denver to the Toronto Transportation Commission (TTC). The TTC’s complete system map is provided to customers for free at subway stations, with smaller, simplified versions available as tear-away pamphlets. Large-format versions are also displayed across the network in bus shelters and subway stations. A PDF version can also be easily found on the TTC website in the main Routes and Schedules page. Surface routes are categorized by service level (express, frequent service, regular service, limited service, seasonal, and community routes) with major landmarks and transfer points to connecting services clearly indicated.
I have some minor complaints about the TTC’s map (like regular routes, express routes should be categorized in the map based on their service levels, for instance) but it is a reasonable, easy to read map that is also quite easy to find.
Unfortunately, more transit systems are moving away from easily accessible paper maps. Durham Region Transit, for example, no longer provides copies of its system map. Fortunately, a proper, well-designed PDF copy remains accessible on its website.
When travelling, or looking to understand a city’s transit network though, there is nothing quite like poring through a well-designed, easy-to-read paper map. It would be a shame if more agencies went the way of Denver and Pittsburgh.
On Monday, February 26, the new Ontario One Fare Program will take effect. Transit riders who previously had to pay a second fare when transferring from GO Transit or suburban transit agencies (York Region Transit, MiWay, etc.) to the TTC, will now benefit from a free transfer. Passengers will also be able to transfer free from the TTC to suburban buses or get the TTC fare discounted if transferring to GO Transit.
The new fare program, subsidized by the provincial government, is only available to customers who pay using a Presto card or other contactless payment options (credit card, debit card, mobile app). It is also not applicable to and from UP Express.
This is good news for many transit users, and it fixes several flaws in the existing fare structure. For example, when GO Transit moved its Highway 407 buses — originally designed to ferry commuters to York University — to Highway 407 Station in Vaughan, students and staff had to pay the TTC fare just to go two stops or endure an unfriendly walk. For a short time, there was a $1.50 discount for GO-TTC transfers, but that was allowed to expire under the Ontario PC government.
The elimination of the double fare will also benefit transit passengers who live or work near the border of Toronto and York, Peel, and Durham Regions. On the boundary between Markham and Toronto, it is common to see lots of bicycles locked up at bus stops along or near Steeles Avenue at TTC stops. These bicycles are owned by York Region residents who ride south to avoid the double fare and benefit from one less transfer. Once the new free transfer comes into effect, it will be interesting to see if there is a bump in YRT ridership.
Bicycles parked on the south side of Steeles Avenue, February 2024
Though the new free TTC transfer should — at least in theory — eliminate a barrier to integrating GO Transit with local transit, the TTC really isn’t set up to feed the GO Transit rail network, nor are many GO stations set up to serve TTC riders. There are historical reasons for these poor connections, but they will need to be fixed.
GO Transit started off in 1967 as a commuter rail pilot project, with the Government of Ontario (the “GO” in GO Transit) looking to keep costs down in case the three-year experiment was unsuccessful. Many station sites were selected for their proximity to major roads and highways and parking access. As the service was intended to attract suburban commuters from their cars and mitigate the need for expensive highway widenings, transit access was only a secondary consideration. The initial Lakeshore Line exceeded expectations and so GO added new lines to Georgetown (1974), Richmond Hill (1978), Milton (1981) and took over CN commuter operations to Bradford/Barrie and Stouffville.
An example of this era of GO Transit station placement is Old Cummer Station, which opened in 1978. It was built where the Richmond Hill Line crossed the Finch hydro corridor, with land underneath the transmission lines easily paved over for parking. A walkway leads south to Finch Avenue, where one can connect to TTC buses, but the station building and the platform are oriented towards the parking.
As the Richmond Hill Line only operates during the peak periods, and is the only GO train service not destined for service expansion, this is not a major problem.
In the 905 suburbs, such as Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, and Whitby, local transit connections are often quite good. For decades, commuters in those cities have benefitted from discounted or free fares on local transit when heading to or from GO rail stations (with Presto, connections to and from GO buses are now also free). Many transit agencies, particularly Durham Region, Oakville, and Burlington along the Lakeshore Line, centre their bus systems around the GO stations. Brampton built its downtown bus terminal adjacent to the GO station in 1989, and in 2023, Metrolinx opened a new bus terminal at Bramalea Station, allowing for easy transfers between buses and trains.
Bramalea GO Stationbus loop
On the other hand, the TTC bus network was designed around the subway network, with nearly every route serving at least one rapid transit station. Though TTC buses would pass by GO stations, transfers between the two were limited because of the extra fare and the infrequent GO services compared to the subway. The only TTC loop on GO station property is at Rouge Hill Station, though Exhibition Loop and Long Branch Loop are short walks to GO station entrances.
Entrance to Guildwood GO Station at Kingston Road. TTC passengers looking to connect with GO trains must cross a busy intersection than then walk through a parking lot to reach the station building.
As GO Transit continues to expand, and fare integration finally becomes a reality, there is both an opportunity and a need to change. Though there are plenty of examples of poor GO-TTC connections, there are also some promising moves towards physical integration between the two systems.
The worst GO-TTC connection: Etobicoke North
Red path shows walking route between northbound 45 Kipling bus stop and Etobicoke North GO platform
Etobicoke North station opened in 1974 as part of the Georgetown (now Kitchener) GO Line. The station and parking lot were built on Ministry of Transportation property and in a hydro corridor. Though the frequent 45 Kipling bus passes under the rail corridor, the transfer between bus and train requires crossing two sides of the busy Kipling/Belfield/Highway 409 off-ramp intersection, continuing on a narrow sidewalk, and climbing a flight of stairs before reaching the main walkway to the station platform. Though a passenger could save a lot of time by transferring to the train (especially as it now runs seven days a week), the long and uncomfortable transfer makes this very uninviting.
A new station at Woodbine Racetrack is proposed, but work has yet to begin. The station at Etobicoke North will eventually have to be closed and demolished to make way for track expansion required for 15-minute GO service. There’s an opportunity to build a great transit hub at Woodbine, especially with an extension of the Finch West LRT.
Metrolinx map of the potential Highway 27-Woodbine Station
An accessibility failure: Scarborough GO
Scarborough GO Station, from St. Clair Avenue East
Scarborough GO Station, near St. Clair Avenue East and Kennedy Road, is located where the GO Stouffville Line splits off from the Lakeshore Line; the station was originally known as Scarborough Junction, as it was the point where the Midland Railway of Canada met the Grand Trunk Railway. (This is where Midland Avenue gets its name from.) The station building and parking lot is located on the south side of the tracks, accessible from Midland and Reeve Avenues. A walkway on the north side of the station leads to St. Clair Avenue East, but it involves several staircases and is not fully accessible to the street, where the 9 Bellamy and 102 Markham Road buses stop.
The Scarborough Junction Masterplan development proposal includes a new connection to St. Clair Avenue as part of a transit-oriented mixed-use community. It promises to better integrate GO and TTC services but will likely be several years before construction begins and even longer until a fully accessible connection is possible.
A more typical transfer: Agincourt GO
Agincourt GO Station, looking northeast from the south side of Sheppard Avenue East
Agincourt Station, in service since 1871, was taken over by GO Transit in 1982. The station building was always located several hundred metres north of Sheppard Avenue, and even in CN commuter rail days, featured a small parking lot. In 2012, an overpass was built separating Sheppard Avenue from the tracks; this allowed for a future Sheppard East LRT as well as train service expansion (a grassy median marks where the light rail line was planned to go). The TTC bus stops are located where the parking lot driveway exits onto Sheppard at a signalized intersection.
Unfortunately, the station platforms were not moved south on the overpass, reducing the walking distance between the train and bus stops and sidewalks on Sheppard Avenue. Though there’s a proper walkway between the TTC stops and the station itself, the station remains oriented mainly to the surface parking lot. Transfers are definitely possible, but not particularly easy.
The nearest eastbound TTC bus stop to Weston GO/UPX Station, located a five-minute walk to the east
Similar situations exist at Weston GO/UP Express station, where the TTC stops are several hundred metres away from the GO platforms at Weston Road and Lawrence Avenue, and at Oriole Station, where the walk from the GO platform to Leslie subway station is still unnecessarily lengthy and also requires crossing a busy intersection.
Milliken GO: A promising direction
A Steeles East TTC bus stops at Milliken GO Station
As part of the Stouffville Line corridor upgrades (which includes double-tracking the line between Scarborough Junction and Unionville) Milliken GO Station was recently rebuilt. It now features a new grade separation over Steeles Avenue, along with two new pedestrian overpasses on either side of the tracks. Though the station building is still oriented to the parking lot south of Steeles Avenue, the new layout provides excellent connections to buses on Steeles Avenue, including TTC routes 53/953 Steeles East, 43A Kennedy, and 57 Midland. Entrances on both sides of Steeles Avenue offer stairs and elevators to platform level.
TTC bus stop, separated bike lane, and access to GO trains
The one issue at Milliken Station — as with many GO stations — is that the wayfinding from platform level to TTC buses is completely missing. Ideally, signage should indicate not only the route to TTC buses, but the connecting bus routes as well.
Unfortunately, signage at Milliken Station does not indicate TTC bus connections
A new GO Station, nearly three kilometres to the south, will feature a similar layout. As platforms will extend over Finch Avenue, transfers between train and bus will be even more convenient at Finch-Kennedy as they are at Milliken. With minimal parking and optimized transit connections, this should be the norm as GO Transit transforms into a frequent, regional rail network. As of February 2024, preliminary work has started on the grade separation.
Rendering of the future Finch-Kennedy GO Station
Concluding thoughts
The new Ontario One Fare Program is a long-overdue step towards integrating the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s disparate transit agencies and addressing unfair tariff boundaries at Steeles Avenue and elsewhere. It also recognizes GO Transit’s future as a regional rapid transit network that not only connects the suburbs to Toronto, but a solution to providing better transit within the city as well.
Most importantly, TTC-GO transfers should be simple, easy, and direct. Happily, there is some momentum to making this happen — Downsview Park Station, opened in December 2017, is a great example of physical integration between GO and TTC — but as shown above, there is much work to be done.
On July 24, 2023, 38 years of Line 3, the Scarborough RT, came to an ignoble end when a car came off the tracks just south of Ellesmere Station, four months ahead of the scheduled closure of the deteriorating line. Though the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) were hesitant to say so at the time, it was apparent that the July derailment meant Line 3’s permanent closure. A farewell party, with two SRT cars, was held at Scarborough Centre Station on September 23, 2023, allowing the public to have one last sit in the venerable cars.
I went to check out the new temporary bus lanes on Midland and Kennedy, installed ahead of a planned busway between Kennedy and Ellesmere Stations. The busway, which will open in 2025 after the old SRT right-of-way is decommissioned, will include a new stop at Tara Avenue, at the Meadoway trail.
In the meantime, most drivers appear to be respecting the new painted lanes, even on busy Kennedy Road. With several bus routes from north and east Scarborough diverted to Kennedy Station to provide a more pleasant ride, the bus lanes are very well used.
Streetcars backed up eastbound at King and University, November 28, 2023
On Tuesday, November 28, the University of Toronto’s School of Cities released their report that looked at vehicle movement and traffic violations on the King Street Transit Priority Corridor. They found that there are, on average, 6,800 illegal turns and through movements at intersections on the corridor, and less than 0.3% of offenders are stopped by Toronto Police and ticketed. Traffic enforcement was heaviest between November 2017 (when the pilot began) and March 2020 (when the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions began). Enforcement has not caught up since then.
The U of T School of Cities has provided invaluable quantification of what many Torontonians have suspected for years: the King Street Transit Priority Corridor is broken, and that there is little being done to fix it.
The transit priority corridor, which runs between Bathurst Street in the west and Jarvis Street in the east, has restrictions on through vehicle movements, where motorists must turn right at most intersections. Until 10 PM daily, only TTC buses and streetcars, emergency vehicles, and bicyclists are exempt. After 10 PM, taxis may also continue through the corridor.
The pilot program launched on November 12, 2017. The initial pilot, in which signs were erected, Jersey barriers placed to restrict the curb lane, and TTC stops moved to the far side of most intersections, was intended to optimize permanent streetscaping improvements, streetcar stop placement and transit optimization, get motorists acquainted with the new rules (at first, only warnings were issued by police) and allow time for Toronto City Council to decide on whether the pilot should be made permanent. Council approved making the transit priority corridor permanent on April 16, 2019.
Though Toronto City Council voted to transform King Street permanently, no work has started on the streetscape or public realm to do so. Just like Union Station, temporary Jersey barriers remain in place. The relocated TTC streetcar stops are left at road level, without transit shelters or accessible curbs. Drivers routinely ignore restrictions, with only a 0.3% chance of getting a $85 or $110 ticket. Meanwhile streetcars get stuck and transit riders get nowhere. On Wednesday, November 8, a Toronto police officer decided to enforce congestion on King Street… by ticketing a streetcar operator stuck in the intersection at University Avenue.
A motorist, ignoring several signs, proceeds straight through on King Street eastbound at Spadina Avenue
The problem is not just limited to through movements on King Street, though. On Tuesday, November 28, I stood at the corner of King and Spadina between 4:00 PM and 4:20 PM. The backup of cars and trucks headed southbound towards the Gardiner Expressway extended into the south side crosswalk and into the eastbound lanes at times. Motorists are not permitted to enter an intersection on a green light if they cannot clear it before the light turns red; this causes gridlock. But on more than one occasion, streetcars and pedestrians were impeded by illegal intersection blocks.
At Spadina and King, a truck and three passenger vehicles block the south side crosswalk and prevent a streetcar from proceeding straight on a green light
After standing at King and Spadina, I walked over to King and University, where the Toronto Police charged a streetcar operator earlier this month. At 5 PM, eastbound streetcars were lining up between University and John Street, unable to proceed.
Traffic jammed at King Street eastbound at University Avenue
However, motorists were able to turn right and left from University Avenue to eastbound King, blocking the east side crosswalk to pedestrians and ensuring that no streetcar could continue across. I spoke to one operator, who told me that the day before, he was stuck there for a half hour before he could move across.
The University and King intersection, at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, November 28. Note the blocked crosswalk and the line of streetcars, all with their hazard lights blinking. Eventually, one streetcar operator decides they had enough, and occupies the intersection.
While there, I counted several motorists who passed to the right of the stopped streetcar, and instead of turning right as permitted, they went straight, only contributing to the blockage ahead.
Two eastbound cars pass a stopped streetcar on the right to join the congestion ahead
The problem downtown is exasperated by several road closures. Queen Street is closed between Bay and Victoria Streets for Ontario Line construction; this will last for at least five years. Adelaide Street, which is one-way eastbound is closed at York Street due to the delayed Adelaide Street diversion track installation that is supposed to allow Queen Streetcars to divert around the Ontario Line closure. York Street is also closed at Adelaide. There are several other lane closures on Bay, Yonge, and Richmond Streets and University Avenue for utility work.
Adelaide Street is likely to remain closed at York until early 2024
Yet, one would hope that something was done to allow transit riders to get through the downtown core, especially as the city has been aware of the severe congestion for weeks at this point. The city needs to move ahead on permanent streetscape changes to further discourage through traffic on King Street by closing the curb lanes at the far side of each intersection.
It is also clear that the Toronto Police are not too interested in ticketing motorists on King Street. Even if they were, it wouldn’t be enough, as it takes 10-15 minutes to stop and ticket a driver; automatic ticketing, similar to red light cameras, would be more effective, though traffic officers can still be strategically deployed at congestion hotspots.
It’s beyond time for this city to take transit seriously again. King Street would be a great place to start.
Vienna low-floor tram in the Leopoldstadt district
Back in October, my spouse and I had the opportunity to visit several countries in Central Europe: Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, though we spent the majority of our time in and around Vienna, as that is where my spouse attended business meetings for several days; we also took time to explore the city and surrounding areas together.
While there, I experienced how serious cities operate trams seriously. In Bratislava, I saw how a streetcar priority corridor can work in a busy downtown core. In Prague, trams made it through watermain construction zones without detours or unreliable bus shuttles. In Budapest, I rode the world’s longest trams that move more people per hour than many metro lines. In Vienna, where I spent the most time, I experienced a city where transit passengers are treated with respect, and where the trams are reliable, despite no discernable signal priority and plenty of mixed-traffic operations.
Vienna is an amazing city to visit. It’s been described to me as “what people think Paris is.” That’s pretty much true. It’s a very walkable city with a fantastic café culture full of independent konditorei cafés (which offer sit-down service), with an assortment of rich, tasty cakes and great coffee. It has great art galleries and grand imperial palaces, but without the crushing crowds of Paris and Versailles. As the original Music City, it’s easy to find shows and performances to suit your tastes. (We attended the famous Wiener Staatsoper, where I took in my first live opera, ever, at a surprisingly reasonable price). It’s also a compact city, easy to walk, though the transport system is excellent. Vienna is also a great base for visiting other cities in Central Europe, where Salzburg, Bratislava, Budapest, and Prague are only a few hours away by (frequent and relatively speedy) train.
We noticed several pedestrian signs showing loving couples, rather than the standard, like this one in front of the Wiener Staatsoper (Opera House)
Vienna has one of the largest tram systems in Europe, with 30 lines over 176.9 kilometres, and a fleet of 525 cars, including modern articulated LRVs and older trams and trailers. In Vienna, trams alone carry approximately 300 million passengers a year. They run in many different environments: on-street in mixed traffic, reserved lanes, dedicated median and side-of-street rights-of-way; there is also a tram tunnel south of the city centre. Until the 1980s, Straßenbahnen (the German name for trams) were the backbone of Vienna’s transport network, with a small Stadtbahn system (now incorporated into the modern U-Bahn) and regional and suburban (S-Bahn) trains providing limited rapid transit services. Though there are now five U-Bahn lines (two of which evolved from the Stadtbahn), the tram system remains robust and very useful for getting around.
Like all four cities mentioned in this post, Vienna operates a mix of low-floor trams built in the last 25 years, as well as older high-floor trams, many of which are accompanied by an unstaffed trailer. Vienna’s entire network — trams, buses, U-Bahn, and S-Bahn — is a proof-of-payment system. Fare inspections appeared to be infrequent; neither my spouse nor I were checked during our eight days in Vienna. Tickets and passes can be purchased from a machine (found at every U-Bahn entrance and at many tram stops) or on the WienMobil app.
An older Type E2 high-floor tram and trailer at Gumpendorfer Straße. Behind is the old Stadtbahn viaduct, which is now part of Line U6. Note the large red “Strassenbahn Haltestelle” sign to the left, a classic Viennese icon that indicates a tram stop.
There is also a separate interurban tram service called Badner Bahn, which extends to the historic spa town of Baden bei Wien, an hour south of Vienna’s city centre.
Badner Bahn tram, laying over at Josefsplatz in Baden bei Wien
The modernized interurban originates in the heart of Vienna — across the street from the Wiener Staatsoper (Opera House) — then along local tram tracks and through the tunnel before entering its own right-of-way through the southern suburbs, and onwards through small towns, farms, and vineyards before arriving in Baden. There are several spurs leading to local industries; the regular passenger service shares the tracks with local freight trains.
View of the vineyards from Badner Bahn
A sample of the journey aboard Badner Bahn. Arriving southbound at Guntramsdorf, heading towards Baden bei Wien.
Bratislava, just over one hour away from Vienna by train (or by catamaran), is served by a network of metre-gauge trams, trolley buses, and diesel buses, though trams predominate in the city centre. On Obchodná, several tram lines, pedestrians, cyclists, and the occasional delivery or emergency services vehicle share a narrow, but busy shopping street. It just works.
Obchodná, Bratislava
Outside the congested urban core, trams are afforded reserved lanes, sometimes separated from general traffic with curbs (and even grass medians), sometimes just painted lines. Bratislava’s tram system is smaller than Toronto’s, with 211 cars and 42 kilometres of revenue track, carrying around 70 million riders a year in 2019 (Toronto’s streetcars carried 108 million that year). It is also a much smaller city, with a population of around 660,000. I only visited Bratislava for a day, but I got to ride much of the tram network; I found it an easy and convenient way to get around.
Reserved, painted tram lanes just outside Bratislava’s city centre
Budapest, Hungary has the largest street railway system in the world by ridership, with Route 4/6 on Budapest’s Grand Boulevard (Hungarian: Nagykörút), often cited as the world’s busiest tram line. Route 4/6 also operates 53.99 metre long Combino Plus trams, which, when introduced in 2006, were the world’s longest. The Combinos are almost twice the length of Toronto’s new Bombardier Flexity cars, which are 28 metres long. Even with the huge capacity these trams have (they require two pantographs to draw enough power to operate), they operate on Line 4/6 every few minutes, all day long, every day.
A Combino Plus tram on Line 4 traverses Budapest’s Nagykörút (Grand Boulevard)
Through the 1970s and 1980s, Budapest’s tram network was slowly cut back in favour of buses, trolley buses, and metro construction. By the 1990s, however, there was a street railway renaissance in Hungary’s capital because of the capacity and economy trams offered. With high frequencies, a private median, and high-capacity low-floor vehicles, Line 4/6 easily matches the capacity of a metro, at comparable speeds. Elsewhere, dedicated lanes and private rights-of-way make it clear that transit riders come first.
Older trams running along the Danube dip under road bridges on a private right-of-way
Though Budapest has a large metro network, most of it was not constructed until the l970s and 1980s. However, Line M1 was opened in 1896 as a shallow subway under Andrássy Avenue, the first electric underground metro in the world, and only the second subway, after London’s initial Underground line. Uniquely among urban transit routes, it it is listed as part of an UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Budapest Line M1 stations, restored to their original appearance, look like miniature New York stations, only cleaner
Finally, in Prague, we took several trams to take shelter from the rains that greeted us after arriving from Budapest, but also to see the city outside the crowded tourist spots. We took Line 1 from the city centre to the suburban district of Hrdlořezy, and returned via Line 9, taking a slightly different route back. Like Budapest, a metro system was planned and built in the 1970s and 1980s, but trams remained important, often providing local services parallel to deep underground metro lines.
Old two-car tram train on Line 9, passing a newer low-floor tram on Line 1, Sokolovská, Prague. Most trams run on reserved rights-of-way.
What interested me was seeing major watermain work along the line. Through trams slowed where work was adjacent, there were no diversions or shuttle buses. The trams ran through.
Watermain replacement in Prague, with trams still running(taken on a rainy morning)
Like Vienna, Bratislava, and Budapest, Prague operates a mixed fleet of older high-floor trams and modern low-floor light rail vehicles, similar to Toronto’s new fleet. But in Prague, heritage trams could often be spotted in service, especially on the west bank of the Vltava near Prague Castle.
Heritage tram #2272 in Prague
Lessons for Toronto
After travelling, it can be easy to spot one’s hometown flaws and faults. But I spent a lot of time riding Vienna’s metros, trams, and buses, and mindfully experiencing the transport networks in Bratislava, Budapest, Prague, and Salzburg (which does not run trams, but has a large trolleybus network), I was left with some key takeaways on how to do transit here.
First and foremost, transit riders were respected. Not necessarily in terms of personable customer service, but the feeling that the next tram or bus was going to arrive on time, and a reliable interval. If there was a delay, it was very well communicated.
For instance, while waiting for a tram in Vienna, we experienced an unusually long wait. The next tram display kept showing the next two arrivals at 3 and 4 minutes. Not long after, a voice came on a loudspeaker posted above the tram stop sign announcing (in German, translated in English to us by one of my spouse’s colleagues) a delay because of a collision along the route. The blockage cleared after a few minutes, and we boarded a crowded tram. I appreciated the audio announcement, especially as it was a basic tram stop.
The classic Vienna tram stop. Note the loudspeakers atop the blue bus stop sign (at night, buses take over, hence the Strassenbahn and Autobus stop signs).
Next vehicle displays were common in every city we visited. They would list — in real time — the next several buses or trams, as well as if the vehicle was low-floor accessible or not with a wheelchair symbol. All buses are now fully accessible, but the information is useful for the tram lines, where there are still many older high-floor vehicles.
Next vehicle display at a bus stop in Bratislava
I also noted that in Vienna, and for the most part elsewhere, vinyl advertisement wraps did not cover passenger windows on trams and buses. Bratislava’s wrapped trams had some ads that used window areas, but these were kept to a minimum.
In Vienna, advertisement wraps kept windows completely free of obstructionsAdvertisement wraps in Bratislava had minimal window coverage
It was also clear that trams had dedicated signals on their routes, if not necessarily signal priority. But with smaller intersections and relatively short signal timings, the waits at each signalized intersection were generally minimal.
Note the white tram signals next to the overhead traffic signal. The “A” indicates that a proceed signal will soon appear, and the operator can cancel the door release, so that no more passengers can enter or exit.
Tram signaling in Vienna and other Central European cites also includes remotely operated electric switches. Overhead signals indicate which direction the switch is set to; operators can pass through junctions at speed. While this is how trams operate in most places around the world, in Toronto, streetcar operators are required to stop before each switch and then crawl.
Trams pass through a track junction, along with an ambulance and a transit maintenance van. The overhead horizontal signal indicates the switch direction.
Though many tram stops are in private rights-of-way, in-street tram stops are designed for passenger safety and accessibility. These stops, depicted by the photograph below, have the curb lane raised to the level of the low-floor trams. This increases the visibility of passengers boarding and egressing, and also simplifies ramp deployment. Operators need not exit the cab and manually deploy the accessibility ramp, a timesaver versus the TTC’s ramp deployment on major streets. In the winter, this also helps keep the slush away from the tram stops.
The raised on-street curb lane at an on-street tram stop in Vienna.
Though Toronto is a very different city than Vienna, Budapest, or Prague, there are some clear takeaways. Keep the tram windows free of advertisements. Improve communications. Fix the track switches and signalize them. Raise the curb lanes at streetcar stops for safety, convenience, and accessibility. Fix the King Street Transit Priority corridor with a permanent streetscape and tighter vehicle restrictions. If it can be done on a narrow commercial street in Bratislava’s historic centre, there’s no reason why it can’t be done in a world financial capital.
These can even be done incrementally, but they need to be done if transit riders are deserving of respect and reliable surface transit.
A Go Transit double decker bus completely covered by a vinyl wrap, with the exception of the front windows and entrance door. The wrap advertises the transit agency’s wifi and music streaming gimmick.
Apart from unscheduled short-turns, lengthy delays, or missed transfers, the thing that bothers me most about riding buses or streetcars is an obstructed view caused by a vinyl advertisement wrap.
Though transit advertisements have been around almost as long as there have been transit services, these advertisements have generally been limited to posters and cards mounted outside the vehicles, or placed inside, above the windows or beside doors. Advertisements have long been placed inside train and subway stations, and in outdoor transit shelters.
TTC photograph of streetcar advertising, 1935. The advertisement can be found below the left dash window of the streetcar. City of Toronto Archives Fonds 16, Series 71, Item 11134.
For advertisers, transit ads provide an ideal vehicle for promoting their goods and services: they can be targeted to specific neighbourhoods that a bus, streetcar, or train passes through; the advertisements move around unlike static billboards, potentially drawing more eyeballs. For transit operators, advertising provides an easy revenue source. Most transit agencies outsource their advertising to larger firms, who are responsible for maintaining accounts and installing and removing ads from vehicles and transit facilities. These companies typically provide an annual payment for the right to advertise on transit vehicles, and at stations and stops.
A GO Transit coach bus departing Bramalea Station, wrapped for a newspaper’s investment news service; all passenger windows are obscured by the advertising wrap
Though vinyl decals on transit vehicles are not a new innovation (advertisements in the late 1980s and early 1990s were typically opaque, sometimes covering parts of passenger windows) more recent technology has allowed for perforated vinyl wraps that fully cover windows, while providing an obscured outside view through small dots. While the vehicle is moving, a passenger inside may be able to see where they are, but not be able to read signage or see details. For some, not having a clear view of forward motion can contribute to motion sickness.
In TTC subway stations and some GO Transit stations, surfaces such as walls, floors, pillars, faregates and even stairways have also become advertising surfaces, a tactic called “station domination.”
An example of Pattison Outdoor’s “station domination” advertising, with a traditional ad poster at right, an installed video screen and ad pillar at centre, and stairs covered in ads, at left.
On occasion, vehicle wraps are used for public relations, rather than advertising. GO Transit and the TTC’s Pride buses are a good example of this. A more shameful example was the TTC’s messaging about fare evasion which took place in late 2019 and early 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Forgot to tap” – part of a TTC streetcar wrap used in late 2019 and early 2020
For the most part, the TTC does not allow ad wraps to completely obscure bus and streetcar windows, but allows up to 70 percent of the passenger windows to be covered, either in a “strip” format (where only the lower parts of the windows are kept uncovered) or “mural” format (where three of five sections of a streetcar are fully covered). Other agencies, like the Hamilton Street Railway, allow for complete vehicle wraps.
St. Catharines/Niagara Region TransitHamilton Street RailwayIt is difficult to get on a bus in Burlington, Hamilton, Niagara, or Brantford without your view being blocked by a certain real estate agent
In Waterloo Region, Regional Councillors just considered a motion to increase the number of wrapped Grand River Transit buses and — for the first time — on ION LRT cars. The appendix to the staff report recommending the increased number of advertising wraps depicts a rail car in a Tropicana wrap, with the windows partially obscured.
According to the report, the Region of Waterloo/Grand River Transit has a contract with Pattison Outdoor — one of Canada’s largest advertising firms — that allows for a total of five buses to be wrapped at any one time. GRT and Pattison want to increase this to ten percent of the total bus fleet, which numbers over 250. It also seeks to wrap one ION rail car at a time, with the promise that windows would not be fully covered and convert some static back-lit shelter ads to digital ads.
Currently, Waterloo Region receives guaranteed revenue from its contract with Pattison, averaging $1,546,500 a year, though the total revenue is projected to reach $1,800,000 for 2023, as ridership increases. Allowing for wraps on 20 more buses and one ION railcar is estimated to net an additional amount up to $500,000.
It’s worth noting that the report notes a 2018 recommendation against advertising on the exterior of LRT vehicles “due to concerns of diminishing the ION brand.” This restriction was also carried to ION-branded buses that follow the planned LRT extension between Fairway Station and Cambridge. It also notes strong public feedback against covering windows, and proposes to do so, “to maintain the customer experience.”
The Region of Waterloo’s entire Transit Services budget — including paratransit — for 2023 is $207,203,000, with transit fares bringing $46,143,000 of that – a 22.3% farebox ratio (property tax and provincial grants cover the difference). $2.3 million brought in from all advertising revenue — traditional poster ads and transit wraps — is not an insignificant sum, but it makes up just over 1% of the entire transit operating budget. In Toronto, the TTC’s 12-year, $324-million contract — also with Pattison Outdoor — brings in a total of $27 million a year, or 1.1% of the entire TTC budget.
At least Waterloo Region staff recognize that transit customers don’t like advertisements that obscure windows. They also acknowledge that transit wraps diminish the transit brand. For a revenue source that represents a mere drop in the bucket, why do transit agencies keep allowing them on their vehicles?
2018 view of the Scarborough RT, looking north towards Ellesmere Station
On Monday July 24, at 6:45 AM, a Scarborough RT car on Line 3 derailed soon after departing Ellesmere Station. Forty-five passengers were on board, and five suffered minor injuries. The Scarborough RT, which opened in March 1985, was suspended, and then permanently closed, four months ahead of its planned shutdown on November 18, 2023. For the first time in its history, Toronto’s rapid transit map has shrunk.
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.
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.
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.
Sean Marshall 