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 

Rainforest said:
It would be very wrong to treat Sheppard LRT as a tool to kill Sheppard subway. LRT is an improvement on its own right, proposed for a corridor that cannot realistically expect a subway; that's the proper way to look at it.

The only reason Sheppard LRT is on the priority list, is that a fair amount of design work has been completed; if it is cancelled or postponed, those costs will be wasted.

If someone can conduct a comprehensive opinion poll amongst the residents living along the proposed Sheppard LRT route; and the majority of said residents, with full understanding that the subway is not coming, still reject the LRT; then I have no problem with transferring the funds to another project. They could be used as a down payment for DRL, or perhaps used to build Waterfront East LRT.

But I suspect that under the above conditions, the majority of residents will vote for LRT, rather than see their transit funding transferred elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I think if the Scarborough Subway from BD opens, the campaign for sheppard will quiet down. I think the LRT is up and running by 2017. To Morningside. My question is how to handle the transfer at sheppard McCowan.
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
My question is how to handle the transfer at sheppard McCowan.
Click to expand...

Ideally, the interchange should be designed as one station, perhaps the LRT going down to the mezzanine level for easier transfers.

However, it is not the end of the world if LRT stays on surface.

The necessary minimum is that the two project teams coordinate the construction details; so that if the LRT opens before the subway, it does not have to close 1 or 2 year after opening in order to dig the hole for subway station.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
The next priority is the DRL and Eglinton West/East for sure.
Click to expand...

Considering that Eg. East (Kennedy to Kingston) has the numbers, and has for years, it has been the first to get cancelled when someone has an itchy crotch.

I have lived in the corridor for a collective 16 years or so, and I can tell you better transit has been needed for a couple of decades at least.
 
LNahid2000 said:
^The problem is that employment increases subway ridership far more than condos. If these people don't work on a subway line, they probably won't bother taking the subway anyway.
Click to expand...

People can transfer to a different subway line to get to the jobs.
 
JWBF said:
Considering that Eg. East (Kennedy to Kingston) has the numbers, and has for years, it has been the first to get cancelled when someone has an itchy crotch.

I have lived in the corridor for a collective 16 years or so, and I can tell you better transit has been needed for a couple of decades at least.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I hope the Eglinton line is completed in Full.
 
Rainforest said:
Ideally, the interchange should be designed as one station, perhaps the LRT going down to the mezzanine level for easier transfers.

However, it is not the end of the world if LRT stays on surface.

The necessary minimum is that the two project teams coordinate the construction details; so that if the LRT opens before the subway, it does not have to close 1 or 2 year after opening in order to dig the hole for subway station.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if they stuck with the design of the old SELRT-SRT transfer plan, which had a larger than normal surface station for the SELRT and an underground station for the SRT. I too hope that the move to more of a St. Clair West station type model though.
 
Not being a segregated corridor, I don't know how well running the SELRT under 5 minutes would work with signal priority. Would it not choke cross traffic with Sheppard getting constant green lights? Perhaps during the height of rush hour it may be worth it while accepting a few red lights, but outside of that it is probably best just to run longer trains if needed, lest we sacrifice the "rapid" focuses of this line even more so.
 
3 minutes works fine, you run into problems if you drop below the timing of a light cycle. A full cycle on Sheppard should take around 1.5 minutes at minimum, so what you would do is run a 2-3 minute cycle (with longer green cycles), and allow the extra 1.5 minutes to use as flex time to cut short for the LRTs.

Ideal timing for lights would be to stick LRT sensors around 10 seconds away from the intersection. They would sense, and either extend the current green to allow the LRT through or begin the cycle of allowing a green. This could take between 6 and 30 seconds to do.

On another note, I rode the highway 7 BRT on thursday for the first time, and was annoyed that the left advances preceded the transit signals. Is there any reason why the Left turn signal can't be activated after the regular green has gone through?
 
It was a botched opportunity. There could have been new dense neighbourhoods with more streets, midrises, as well as the highrises. And could have been sold as best of both worlds being next to the highway and the subway at the same time.

Maybe a North Service Road to the highway to handle the on and off traffic to the highway instead of Sheppard as well.
 
LNahid2000 said:
I said, "If these people don't work on a subway line" not "If these people don't work on the Sheppard line".
Click to expand...

This is a difficult problem to deal with. However, isn't this a problem everywhere? City Council wants to put a subway under McCowan Road while forcing the Sheppard crowd to transfer at Don Mills, even though Sheppard has more development than McCowan. Presumably quite a few of the people buying condos at McCowan and Ellesmere work in Markham and are driving to work.
 
innsertnamehere said:
On another note, I rode the highway 7 BRT on thursday for the first time, and was annoyed that the left advances preceded the transit signals. Is there any reason why the Left turn signal can't be activated after the regular green has gone through?
Click to expand...

Ya, I mentioned that to the Viva staff when I was giving it a spin as well. Despite this, the lights do seem to be aware of the Viva bus and rarely are you waiting more than a few seconds for a light to turn green. Also, if there is no one waiting to make a left turn, it will skip the left turn phase altogether which is pretty sweet.

Something I have always wondered is why do we even install transit signals if they are simply displaying what the regular signals are showing? Heck, I could look the other way if a rapid ROW got all reds with far side stops if the transit vehicle got a headstart against the other traffic. That way by the time it is done loading and unloading passengers it should be no further behind than the regular traffic stopped at the light - if not ahead of it altogether.
 
If the Toronto LRTs have the same style of signal priority as the highway 7 BRT does, but with priority over left turn signals, I will be very happy.

The BRT also moved much faster than traffic and it was 3:00 when I rode it, traffic wasn't that heavy.
 
[video=youtube;70tUBKe5uRg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70tUBKe5uRg[/video]

Here's video for those of us that wish to see the signal priority in action. I'm concerned that the busses aren't given greens fast enough. It looks like the driver had to slow down for a few times while waiting for the lights to change. Also the left turns being given priority over the busses seems like a bad idea. Left turns should proceed after the busses pass. The implementation is okay, but I've seen better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top