News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Which transit plan do you prefer?

  • Transit City

    Votes: 95 79.2%

  • Ford City

    Votes: 25 20.8%
  • Total voters
    120
EMP1729 said:
^^^

Is that photo real or photoshop? I would envision Rob Ford using this photo in order to discourage LRT.

Honestly, I would hate to live on that street if a train was running down the middle like that.
Click to expand...

Believe it is real. According to Wikipedia, it is from Michigan City, Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running). While an old industrial styled train might not be ideal, imagine a sleek Toronto Rocket rolling down Sheppard...
 
400m is really short.... if the avg spacing on the queen streetcar is a stop every 180m then its just over twice as far apart. 720 is 4xs as far and it would be enough spacing to have a good enough speed thats similar to subways without all the stops which would distinct itself from a streetcar. If the TC line stops every 400m good luck in the future trying to convince people that the line is RAPID TRANSIT. Now they wont have data to look at but they will have a real life example to argue with.
 
The whole "double boarding time when increasing spacing" argument is a bit suspect IMO - it's probably only true when the amount of boardings is high enough to cause disruptions to flow, which isn't the case most of the time. And an increase of what, 5 kph should be pursued - that's 25% over base speed.

Wonder what simulation method they used - Monte Carlo? Using figures like average (?) speed really isn't terribly informative - having an idea of spread (which is a very common thing to do with simulations) would give a far better indication of whether it is desirable or not.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Electrify said:
Metrolinx just tweeted this old report on the rational behind Transit City's stop spacing:

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/sheppard_east_lrt/pdf/2008-06_faq.pdf

Discuss
Click to expand...

I want to point out a line from that memo:

The LRT still had delay due to red lights at signalized intersections in between stops, even though the model included signal priority to reduce delays.
Click to expand...

Signal priority, as described by the TTC Transit City team, does not guarantee green lights for LRT vehicles. It can only reduce the number of read lights.

Keep that in mind if you ever hear a claim that "signal priority means that vehicles won't have to stop at red lights".
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The whole "double boarding time when increasing spacing" argument is a bit suspect IMO - it's probably only true when the amount of boardings is high enough to cause disruptions to flow, which isn't the case most of the time. And an increase of what, 5 kph should be pursued - that's 25% over base speed.

Wonder what simulation method they used - Monte Carlo? Using figures like average (?) speed really isn't terribly informative - having an idea of spread (which is a very common thing to do with simulations) would give a far better indication of whether it is desirable or not.

AoD
Click to expand...

thats a good point. Alot of the time on trains very few people get on or get off. For instance on the university subway line the majority of people get off at st clair, eglinton west, yorkdale, downsview. As a result glencarin, dupont, wilson, spadina dont see a crazy amount of boarding issues. so 50% of the trains on the university line i would say takes a decent amount of time to board where as the other 50% of the stops they could almost do a doors open rolling stop:)
 
Reading it over...

1. They claim station stops will take twice as long, as compared to the 400m spacing. I find this figure highly specious. I've never actually timed it, but do stops where they are spaced 2km apart take twice as long as the ones where they are 1km apart? The stops on the Viva, which have all door boarding and 1km stop spacing, tend to be very quick. I cannot imagine the time saved boarding and unloading making up for stopping more frequently. Not to mention most people boarding at major stops will be transferring from another route, so major stops will continue to take longer regardless of how frequently the line stops.

2. It still mentions delays from red lights. This ignores the possibility of full signal priority which could boost the speeds over the 30km/h mark.

3. For reference, between Victoria Park and Morningside (10.3km):
Car via 401 (moderate traffic, source: Google) - 12 minutes
Car via Sheppard (moderate traffic, source: Google) - 18 minutes
Rapid transit (32km/h - grade separated or ROW with full signal priority, 800m stops): 19 minutes
Light rapid transit A (26.5km/h - ROW with medium signal priority, 800m stops): 23 minutes
Light rapid transit B (22.5km/h - ROW with medium signal priority, 400m stops): 27 minutes
Current bus (17km/h - mixed traffic with limited/no signal priority, 290m stops): 36 minutes
Bicycle (moderate conditions, source: Google): 36 minutes

NOTE: In this case, "light rapid transit" refers to operating conditions which are less optimal than "rapid transit," it does not refer to the type of rolling stock used.
 
Last edited:
Electrify said:
Reading it over...

1. They claim station stops will take twice as long, as compared to the 400m spacing. I find this figure highly specious. I've never actually timed it, but do stops where they are spaced 2km apart take twice as long as the ones where they are 1km apart? The stops on the Viva, which have all door boarding and 1km stop spacing, tend to be very quick. I cannot imagine the time saved boarding and unloading making up for stopping more frequently. Not to mention most people boarding at major stops will be transferring from another route, so major stops will continue to take longer regardless of how frequently the line stops.

2. It still mentions delays from red lights. This ignores the possibility of full signal priority which could boost the speeds over the 30km/h mark.

3. For reference, between Victoria Park and Morningside (10.3km):
Car via 401 (moderate traffic, source: Google) - 12 minutes
Car via Sheppard (moderate traffic, source: Google) - 18 minutes
Rapid transit (32km/h - grade separated or ROW with full signal priority, 800m stops): 19 minutes
Light rapid transit A (26.5km/h - ROW with medium signal priority, 800m stops): 23 minutes
Light rapid transit B (22.5km/h - ROW with medium signal priority, 400m stops): 27 minutes
Current bus (17km/h - mixed traffic with limited/no signal priority, 290m stops): 36 minutes
Bicycle (moderate conditions, source: Google): 36 minutes

NOTE: In this case, "light rapid transit" refers to operating conditions which are less optimal than "rapid transit," it does not refer to the type of rolling stock used.
Click to expand...

Light rapid transit A (26.5km/h - ROW 800m Stops) 19 minutes seems about right to me.
 
Electrify said:
Maybe they should though. Currently all options are on the table with Sheppard, and this should be one of them - even if it is not chosen.
Click to expand...

Why proposal something that has zero chance of happening. Theres more likely hood that ROB FORD will be our mayor for the next 20 years (5 terms) then a subway being chosed to go down a major street. Proposals need to be somewhat realistic if not what would stop a proposal such as a giant roller coaster to get people to and from work.
 
EMP1729 said:
^^^

Is that photo real or photoshop? I would envision Rob Ford using this photo in order to discourage LRT.

Honestly, I would hate to live on that street if a train was running down the middle like that.
Click to expand...

It is real. The South Shore Line is the last traditional "interurban"-style railroad in either Canada or the US, and as such requires FRA-compliant equipment.

In fairness, their headways are quite a bit less than what an LRT would operate at.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
It is real. The South Shore Line is the last traditional "interurban"-style railroad in either Canada or the US, and as such requires FRA-compliant equipment.

In fairness, their headways are quite a bit less than what an LRT would operate at.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to go to Detroit just to ride this thing (it runs to Chicago). $32 and a 6 hour trip.
 
MetroMan said:
^ So now they've resorted to straight out lying?
Click to expand...

That is probably the one thing that both sides have in common.
TC and Miller equally lied when they say TC will be be rapid when, anywhere it is not in the tunneled section, it clearly not.
Also when Miller years ago brought the proposal for TC up, the entire system was only going to cost $6 billion but when McGuinty decided to pay for Toronto's portion within 18 months the price tAG SOARED BY 50% TO $9 BILLION.
Miller also lied when he brought forth the demographic date to state that Toronto only needed LRT based on population growth. TC was based on Toronto hitting 3 million by 2030 which is farsical as it will hit that number by 2020 and 3.3 million by 2030. He didn't use ANY statistical data to back up his population projections as the Ontario demograpic population estimates has for years seen Toronto hitting 3.3 million by 2030.
The reason why Toronto is in this fix is that neither side is willing to offer any kind of compromise............for TC supporters it's LRT or nothing and for Ford it's tunneled or nothing.
I went to thet subwayto site and I did find one thing very interesting................it stated all lines should be tunneled or ELEVATED. Maybe some are finally coming to the realization that elevated transit is the affordable option in many areas where total grade separation for mass/rapid transit is required but the huge expense of tunneling is both unwarranted or not optional. Toronto is already amongst the only cities on the planet that doesn't have any form of elevated mass transit..........who knows, maybe Toronto will join the 20th century after all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top