[duffo]

More importantly: Does it matter?
What actually matters is the tram gets a green light. If there is time for a dedicated left before the tram arrives, it makes no difference to tram speed.
Likewise I have heard that iON actually dosent have much TSP, the signals are just really well timed. Again: Does it matter if its TSP or timing? The end result is the same- tram gets a green.

Right, but in the example provided, it probably would have been just as easy to show a Finch LRT proceeding through an intersection, and a Seattle LRT waiting at a red light while cars turn left. Out of context clips prove nothing about how the underlying system operates.

 

[lastcommodore]

Right, but in the example provided, it probably would have been just as easy to show a Finch LRT proceeding through an intersection, and a Seattle LRT waiting at a red light while cars turn left. Out of context clips prove nothing about how the underlying system operates.

This is fair. Maybe I can get a ride along vid and compare time at reds, 6FW vs 1 Seattle

 

[smallspy]

Splitting hairs as to who is to blame more for this and that isn't productive, since all parties seem to be pointing the finger at anyone but themselves. In reality each party involved probably carries some of the blame. City council, city departments, TTC and its board, Metrolinx. And if the stupid idea(s) originated from one party, it's the other party(s) duty to keep those stupid ideas in check, not to complacently yes-man rubber stamp decisions. Even if they don't have the power to countermand decisions, they at least have a duty to voice discontent and dissent to stupid ideas. Death by committee isn't just about wasting time flapping gums, it's about metaphorical committees, organizations that are supposed to work together, but not critically evaluating each other's plans and intentions.

It has nothing to do with splitting hairs, it has to do with where the information came from and more importantly what is its basis.

In this case, the consortium is worried that increased vehicle speeds will result in increased wear on the vehicles - which means that they will need to be serviced more often, and thus affects their bottom line. Of course they are going to complain about it, and because the contracts are written in the way they are, they win in this case. Which is patently absurd.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

It has nothing to do with splitting hairs, it has to do with where the information came from and more importantly what is its basis.

In this case, the consortium is worried that increased vehicle speeds will result in increased wear on the vehicles - which means that they will need to be serviced more often, and thus affects their bottom line. Of course they are going to complain about it, and because the contracts are written in the way they are, they win in this case. Which is patently absurd.

Dan

I implore you read this quote from @lastcommodore for my sentiment on this issue and other members' posts with evidence that this is the TTC playing dumb and acting powerless. When in fact, they likely have the ability to make changes, but they would rather sit on their hands and do nothing. There is a clear pattern of behaviour of the TTC coming up with any and all excuses to avoid changing anything besides slowing down service even further i.e. Flexity streetcars, Line 1's top speed is reduced etc...:

The problem here is:
- There was no communication by basically anyone involved, and even now a lot of it seems to come down to the blame-game. TTC has seemingly spent more time trying to blame the consortium or whatever than actually doing anything to speed up 6 by interpreting their contracts in the strictest way possible (Faster speeds -> we broke the contract (??) -> we have to literally consult everyone before we can do anything) meanwhile the province and MX are telling the TTC that they have the power to just go faster.
- Tram vehicle operation is not new to the TTC. We have the entire streetcar network of Toronto to show that the TTC has basically gone "We've tried making things slower and we're all out of ideas on how to make things faster". The TTC has shown literally zero interest in even making the routes with dedicated ROWs slightly faster, and has repeatedly clogged up every opportunity and attempt at doing so ("We have to consult literally everyone to remove a stop and if ONE person objects we gotta cancel!")
- These motions from the city should be entirely unnecessary. The TTC should be just getting it done, or the TTC should be demanding the city let them implement faster protocols- not the other way around.

This is not the first time you misinterpreted some secondhand info: You claimed $10 million per km per year for maintenance of 70 km of subway, when no subway system on earth comes close to that cost per km, and 42 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5 RSD which has been proven wrong. Look at this statement by Metrolinx. Even if it's Metrolinx's fault for going along with whatever braindead ideas came out of the city and TTC in the past*, the problem is out of its hands now. This is mostly between the TTC (which is under the city) and Black & McDonald doing the signals. Running faster service is not going to significantly increase maintenance costs because vehicle hours overall are reduced proportional to the reduction in number of vehicles needed to run the route, assuming no headway changes. Vehicle-km total will stay the same, but vehicle-km per vehicle will increase, but you'll be running less vehicles... We've been over this half a dozen times. And yet here people are, still claiming like it's cut and dry that maintenance or even operating costs are going to go through the roof because the LRVs were pushed a bit harder. All nominal maintenance cost "increases", if any, shouldn't even be increases, but a return to the norm. The TTC isn't even operating the trams fast enough to meet the original contractual run times. That contract would've factored in the maintenance costs for the speeds needed to run 33-38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 6, and 38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5.

*"For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." (Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf)

 

[Kyle Campbell]

More importantly: Does it matter?
What actually matters is the tram gets a green light. If there is time for a dedicated left before the tram arrives, it makes no difference to tram speed.
Likewise I have heard that iON actually dosent have much TSP, the signals are just really well timed. Again: Does it matter if its TSP or timing? The end result is the same- tram gets a green.

Having ridden that line in Seattle, the on street portion felt slow, though not Line 6 slow. But it's such a small portion of the system

 

[Bojaxs]

Realistically, how many minutes can we shave off of a single, full length trip by just giving trains the green light before left turns?

3-4 minutes at the most?

 

[duffo]

I implore you read this quote from @lastcommodore for my sentiment on this issue and other members' posts with evidence that this is the TTC playing dumb and acting powerless. When in fact, they likely have the ability to make changes, but they would rather sit on their hands and do nothing. There is a clear pattern of behaviour of the TTC coming up with any and all excuses to avoid changing anything besides slowing down service even further i.e. Flexity streetcars, Line 1's top speed is reduced etc...:


This is not the first time you misinterpreted some secondhand info: You claimed $10 million per km per year for maintenance of 70 km of subway, when no subway system on earth comes close to that cost per km, and 42 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5 RSD which has been proven wrong. Look at this statement by Metrolinx. Even if it's Metrolinx's fault for going along with whatever braindead ideas came out of the city and TTC in the past*, the problem is out of its hands now. This is mostly between the TTC (which is under the city) and Black & McDonald doing the signals. Running faster service is not going to significantly increase maintenance costs because vehicle hours overall are reduced proportional to the reduction in number of vehicles needed to run the route, assuming no headway changes. Vehicle-km total will stay the same, but vehicle-km per vehicle will increase, but you'll be running less vehicles... We've been over this half a dozen times. And yet here people are, still claiming like it's cut and dry that maintenance or even operating costs are going to go through the roof because the LRVs were pushed a bit harder. All nominal maintenance cost "increases", if any, shouldn't even be increases, but a return to the norm. The TTC isn't even operating the trams fast enough to meet the original contractual run times. That contract would've factored in the maintenance costs for the speeds needed to run 33-38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 6, and 38 minute end-to-end trips for Line 5.
View attachment 702424View attachment 702423

View attachment 702422
*"For these reasons, and in consultation with the City and TTC the Metrolinx consortia are implementing Conditional TSP on Line5 Eglinton and Line 6 Finch West." (Source: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf)

Your tone is extremely aggressive and persistent on many ongoing UT threads. Seriously, you need to stop trying to prosecute long time respected members of the forum and participate in good faith discussion. I'm not a mod but I suspect you're not far from getting blocked.

 

[T3G]

Realistically, how many minutes can we shave off of a single, full length trip by just giving trains the green light before left turns?

3-4 minutes at the most?

No chance. The light cycles are very long in several places, you might save that much over the span of 2-3 intersections.

There was a calculation in here, I want to say by @urbanclient , which estimated the amount of minutes lost at traffic lights as closer to 8-10. And that's before we get into the refusal to push the LRT beyond the rail equivalent of second gear. I can't find that post, though, as there's been more than 40 pages of discussion in this thread since the opening.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

No chance. The light cycles are very long in several places, you might save that much over the span of 2-3 intersections.

There was a calculation in here, I want to say by @urbanclient , which estimated the amount of minutes lost at traffic lights as closer to 8-10. And that's before we get into the refusal to push the LRT beyond the rail equivalent of second gear. I can't find that post, though, as there's been more than 40 pages of discussion in this thread since the opening.

That would explain some of the difference, but the bus would hit all the same lights as the LRT and presumably wait as long, so TSP is not the only factor here. The bus in light traffic is far faster

 

[ssiguy2]

There is a potential conspiracy here. Yes, the TTC cannot control the lights or even the top speed the trains are allowed to travel at while at grade. That, once again, is the City. That said, the TTC would love to get signal priority to get their vehicles moving and to save money........one worker could make 3 round trips for every 2 they currently can.

In other words, it's very possible that the TTC is glad that Finch and Eglinton are going to be a LOT slower than promised. They know this fiasco would finally put the political pressure on the City to give their streetcars/LRT the advanced signaling they deserve and to get rid of many of these ridiculously closely spaced stops/station. Proof is in the pudding, it's working. Even Ford is mad at these anemic speeds and lack of signal priority and he now knows that he is going to be getting even more grief when Eglinton opens. Ribbon cuttings are always a politicians best friend but these lines are actually hurting the Conservative reputation and he's already probably finding an excuse to be out of town when the line officially opens.

 

[lastcommodore]

That would explain some of the difference, but the bus would hit all the same lights as the LRT and presumably wait as long, so TSP is not the only factor here. The bus in light traffic is far faster

The TTC also has much stricter speed restrictions and accelerate/brake much slower than even MX testing the line...

There is a potential conspiracy here. Yes, the TTC cannot control the lights or even the top speed the trains are allowed to travel at while at grade. That, once again, is the City. That said, the TTC would love to get signal priority to get their vehicles moving and to save money........one worker could make 3 round trips for every 2 they currently can.

I might buy this if the TTC was actually trying, but they only look to be intentionally dragging their feet even when the city directs the TTC to figure out how to go faster.

 

[urbanclient]

Your tone is extremely aggressive and persistent on many ongoing UT threads. Seriously, you need to stop trying to prosecute long time respected members of the forum and participate in good faith discussion. I'm not a mod but I suspect you're not far from getting blocked.

Being long tenured on this forum doesn't make one immune to spreading misinformation. Mistakenly spreading inaccurate information is something I am sure I am guilty of doing as well. I am happy to be corrected by the plethora of knowledgable people here, but when people appear to regurgitate talking points that have been addressed or at least partially disproven then who's having bad faith at that point. Pursuit of the truth is not bad faith. Not bothering to read through the thread or look into things on their own time just to condescend to newer/other members is bad faith. Being wrong is a natural consequence of spitballing on this forum. And I am all for more discourse and free speech. But when I see a pattern of acting like an authoritative source, only to be be proven categorically wrong by subject matter experts or information released later on, then something starts to smell off.

(For clarity, I am not the said subject matter expert(s) in this case)

Does this sound aggressive?

I'm not sure either of you are correct about either of those statements, even based off my memory after listening to the TTC Board meeting Dec 10:

Consider me corrected

Was thinking ideal scenario to point out that some combination of 2 and 3 cars could be possible to run on Day 1 to maximize route capacity. If 95 minutes is the realistic round trip time, then we could do 21 two car trains and 8 three car trains at 3.25 min or something similar to keep 7-10 spare cars? Do you think having such a low spare ratio is feasible?

 

[ssiguy2]

The TTC also has much stricter speed restrictions and accelerate/brake much slower than even MX testing the line...

I might buy this if the TTC was actually trying, but they only look to be intentionally dragging their feet even when the city directs the TTC to figure out how to go faster.

Once again, this is the City and Chow's fault. The City, ultimately, controls everything the TTC does because the City is the one that funds them and when you control the money you have complete control. Yes, the TTC has shown shocking incompetency but the bottom line is that the buck stops at City Hall. The City even has the legal ability to fire the Board because they are not unionized and nothing will make the TTC mandarins have an epiphany more than a pink slip will.

This fiasco is NOT an operational issue, it's a political one so if one want to start laying blame then do it at City Hall because when push comes to shove, the TTC has to do whatever the City says whether they like it or not.

 

[Steve X]

It’s more amusing that they use wear and tear as an excuse. The vehicles were designed for this. Low floor vehicles supposedly incurs more too.

 

[duffo]

Btw the entire line is currently down due to a mechanical problem.