[nfitz]

I believe, even the surface sections Don Mills - Kennedy and Brentcliff - Leslie are designed to allow 3-car trains. The street blocks are very long on that section of Eglinton, it should be possible to fit long surface stops. They might not need to replace anything with buses.

They are long enough for 3 cars.

I was speculating about an option if there's need more frequent trains than the surface section can handle. The should be able to do every 90 seconds in the tunnel.

But I don't think that will happen.

After all, the peak point was only predicted to be about 5,500 per direction AFTER the extension opens to Pearson.

 

[T3G]

Trams take longer to stop vs. a bus because of the low friction between the wheel and rail. This means that a tram has to start braking further away from the light than a bus would. If visibility of the signal is poor at the braking point, the tram always has to brake before the intersection.

This may very well be true, but letting that factor into our traffic management policies is dangerous, and breeds the exact culture of stupidity that "necessitates" LRTs to slow down for intersections.

When it comes to insanely heavy vehicles that can't stop on a dime, why does a bus vs. a tram matter? If you dart out in front of them outside of their respective stopping distances, they will grievously injure you - and if the bus doesn't hit you, it could be because it swerved out into the next lane and may even have hit something that was in its way there. Is it okay if someone gets injured or killed if it's done by a bus with a shorter stopping distance, compared with a tram with a longer stopping distance? The risk is always there. Not to mention all the other dangerous ways a bus ride could go south - we let them travel at high speeds, with standing loads, on the 400 series highways! If we applied this level of risk reduction to our bus network, buses would certainly never travel than 50 km/h, and probably not be allowed standees either.

Playing chicken with all heavy vehicles is insanely dangerous - hell, if a bike, clipping along at 20-25 km/h ploughed directly into someone, it could do some serious damage as well - so if we really want to make sure people are safe from heavy vehicles, then yes, I would expect all of them to be required to slow down entering an intersection. What about trains? How come we're not all up in arms about the fact that level crossings often have zero additional barriers to entry for anyone who decided to just walk around the barrier?

Unless someone wanted to introduce lowered speed limits for any grade integrated heavy vehicle, singling out LRVs specifically seems like concern trolling intended to discredit the whole concept of a tram.

 

[jmi22]

Have you figured out the slop requirement as well where the slop starts at both ends between Dupont and St Clair to deal with the 8%(?) grade as well getting over CP tracks??

Will work nicely between Rogers Rd and Eglinton Ave.

Where do you plan to put the bent supports south of Eglinton without removing on street parking and the lack of current sidewalk space??

I appreciate your dedication to detail, but I was mostly making a joke lol

 

[adys123]

This may very well be true, but letting that factor into our traffic management policies is dangerous, and breeds the exact culture of stupidity that "necessitates" LRTs to slow down for intersections.

When it comes to insanely heavy vehicles that can't stop on a dime, why does a bus vs. a tram matter? If you dart out in front of them outside of their respective stopping distances, they will grievously injure you - and if the bus doesn't hit you, it could be because it swerved out into the next lane and may even have hit something that was in its way there. Is it okay if someone gets injured or killed if it's done by a bus with a shorter stopping distance, compared with a tram with a longer stopping distance? The risk is always there. Not to mention all the other dangerous ways a bus ride could go south - we let them travel at high speeds, with standing loads, on the 400 series highways! If we applied this level of risk reduction to our bus network, buses would certainly never travel than 50 km/h, and probably not be allowed standees either.

Playing chicken with all heavy vehicles is insanely dangerous - hell, if a bike, clipping along at 20-25 km/h ploughed directly into someone, it could do some serious damage as well - so if we really want to make sure people are safe from heavy vehicles, then yes, I would expect all of them to be required to slow down entering an intersection. What about trains? How come we're not all up in arms about the fact that level crossings often have zero additional barriers to entry for anyone who decided to just walk around the barrier?

Unless someone wanted to introduce lowered speed limits for any grade integrated heavy vehicle, singling out LRVs specifically seems like concern trolling intended to discredit the whole concept of a tram.

I understand your frustration here. To an earlier point I made in this thread, most international tram systems do slow down *slightly* when crossing intersections for safety reasons due to the physics of friction mentioned by @MovingBlock. North America is a risk-adverse and litigious society, and this makes our societal risk tolerance lower and is the rationale for TTC to require trams to slow to 20 km/h through intersections. I certainly share those frustrations, but it unfortunately requires more systemic change. The value of bringing in international companies or consultants can actually be seen in operating practice and could be valuable in creating culture change.

 

[MovingBlock]

I understand your frustration here. To an earlier point I made in this thread, most international tram systems do slow down *slightly* when crossing intersections for safety reasons due to the physics of friction mentioned by @MovingBlock. North America is a risk-adverse and litigious society, and this makes our societal risk tolerance lower and is the rationale for TTC to require trams to slow to 20 km/h through intersections. I certainly share those frustrations, but it unfortunately requires more systemic change. The value of bringing in international companies or consultants can actually be seen in operating practice and could be valuable in creating culture change.

Trams will never be as fast as a bus in a dedicated lane because of the difference in braking ability. You can't really exceed 40km/h in a tram (or any rail vehicle for that manner) being driven on-sight. Service could still be improved, though, by speeding up the slowest areas (e.g. at switches).

 

[Racer_77]

Are those fare gates in the final locations? If so it looks like there is only one connection between Line 1 and 5 that doesnt require passengers to leave a fare zone and then re-enter...

Probably, it aligns with plans approved at a 2018 TTC board meeting. And right on the fare-paid transfer, there's only the connections at the centre of the ECLRT concourse (stairs to the north, escalator to the south, elevator in between).

 

[Rainforest]

I guess we’ll see what the travel time actually ends up being.

True; but we will have to compare the actual LRT travel time from Kennedy to Brentcliffe to the estimated travel time that could have been achieved on the subway. The latter greatly depends on the assumed stop spacing.

Say, the Yonge subway covers 8 km from Finch to Eglinton in ~ 14 min (34 kph). But the next ~ 8 km from Eglinton to Union take 20 min (24 kph).

 

[Dan416]

True; but we will have to compare the actual LRT travel time from Kennedy to Brentcliffe to the estimated travel time that could have been achieved on the subway. The latter greatly depends on the assumed stop spacing.

Say, the Yonge subway covers 8 km from Finch to Eglinton in ~ 14 min (34 kph). But the next ~ 8 km from Eglinton to Union take 20 min (24 kph).

I remember when the Eglinton line was first discussed, people were saying that since the stop spacing is similar to Bloor, that the travel time should be similar. That will be the benchmark in my view.

 

[T3G]

Trams will never be as fast as a bus in a dedicated lane because of the difference in braking ability. You can't really exceed 40km/h in a tram (or any rail vehicle for that manner) being driven on-sight. Service could still be improved, though, by speeding up the slowest areas (e.g. at switches).

This is utterly untrue. Right off the top of my head I can think of Prague and Bratislava for systems that use line-of-sight operation that run at 50 km/h on suburban rights-of-way that resemble the Eglinton one, and from what I've been able to find, there doesn't appear to be any reason for not running as fast as 60 or even 65 (the top design speed of the Tatra T3, which are still numerous in Prague) is that the track itself is not built for such speeds. Neither system slows down for intersections, and Prague even has installed high speed switches on some of these lines which allow the tram to negotiate them at line speed. Despite all of this, there is not an epidemic of collisions, and pedestrians are not being mowed down by the thousands by this "reckless" behaviour.

 

[MovingBlock]

This is utterly untrue. Right off the top of my head I can think of Prague and Bratislava for systems that use line-of-sight operation that run at 50 km/h on suburban rights-of-way that resemble the Eglinton one, and from what I've been able to find, there doesn't appear to be any reason for not running as fast as 60 or even 65 (the top design speed of the Tatra T3, which are still numerous in Prague) is that the track itself is not built for such speeds. Neither system slows down for intersections, and Prague even has installed high speed switches on some of these lines which allow the tram to negotiate them at line speed. Despite all of this, there is not an epidemic of collisions, and pedestrians are not being mowed down by the thousands by this "reckless" behaviour.

You can find plenty of footage on YouTube of close calls in Prague. There are aspects of their infrastructure design (e.g. no channelization of crossing pedestrian traffic ant stops) are not very good.

 

[drum118]

All stations will handle 3-car trains from day one as well as the intersections. Even the bypass track will hold a 3-car train

Given the fact to date, streetcars get a red light up to 30 seconds before the cars get one and are slower off the mark when the light changes to green. As for the speed between stations and intersections, it is terribly slow at this time than they should be.

 

[T3G]

You can find plenty of footage on YouTube of close calls in Prague.

I didn't say there aren't foolish people with no sense of awareness in the city - they are everywhere, in all parts of the world (they even take risks with their lives when crossing against our abysmally slow downtown streetcar network).

But Prague has seen fit not to jeopardize their network with artificial speed limits, and the result is not any more or less dangerous than the Crosstown would be.

 

[adys123]

All stations will handle 3-car trains from day one as well as the intersections. Even the bypass track will hold a 3-car train

Given the fact to date, streetcars get a red light up to 30 seconds before the cars get one and are slower off the mark when the light changes to green. As for the speed between stations and intersections, it is terribly slow at this time than they should be.

This is due to the aforementioned signalization requirements for red clearance times. Showing that these LRTs will not be solely line-of-sight systems.

 

[adys123]

This is utterly untrue. Right off the top of my head I can think of Prague and Bratislava for systems that use line-of-sight operation that run at 50 km/h on suburban rights-of-way that resemble the Eglinton one, and from what I've been able to find, there doesn't appear to be any reason for not running as fast as 60 or even 65 (the top design speed of the Tatra T3, which are still numerous in Prague) is that the track itself is not built for such speeds. Neither system slows down for intersections, and Prague even has installed high speed switches on some of these lines which allow the tram to negotiate them at line speed. Despite all of this, there is not an epidemic of collisions, and pedestrians are not being mowed down by the thousands by this "reckless" behaviour.

While I can appreciate your examples from Eastern Europe, and they still provide valuable lessons. There are substantial differences from how that society works compared to North America or even Western Europe, and while proposing solutions they need to be feasible in local conditions. There are many more videos of near misses from Eastern Europe than there are even from Western Europe because the tolerance for risk is different. In an individualistic society (like in North America), risk management and risk reduction is the name of the game.

 

[PL1]

While I can appreciate your examples from Eastern Europe, and they still provide valuable lessons. There are substantial differences from how that society works compared to North America or even Western Europe, and while proposing solutions they need to be feasible in local conditions. There are many more videos of near misses from Eastern Europe than there are even from Western Europe because the tolerance for risk is different. In an individualistic society (like in North America), risk management and risk reduction is the name of the game.

Czechia and Slovakia would *definitely* call themselves Central Europe, FWIW

(Edit: Although all former Eastern Bloc countries had a similar planning)