News   Apr 19, 2024
Shimmering Skyline
 175     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 851     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 8K     2 

TTC surface stop spacing

More untendered contracts and liabilities from the likes of Orion and Bombaridier?

BurlOak said:
It would have been much easier to change the vehicle type a year ago - when the ink on the contract was still wet. By sticking with the LRT vehciles, they (the Province?) also made the Ford plan look more foolish and helped ensure it would eventually be defeated and we could revert to Transit City.
Click to expand...

Didn't we have enough of that under Miller? The CITY is, or should be in the driver's seat on this, the production companies can go suck their thumbs if plans change.
 
RichA said:
Didn't we have enough of that under Miller? The CITY is, or should be in the driver's seat on this, the production companies can go suck their thumbs if plans change.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the city should abide by contracts?
 
BurlOak said:
It would have been much easier to change the vehicle type a year ago - when the ink on the contract was still wet. By sticking with the LRT vehciles, they (the Province?) also made the Ford plan look more foolish and helped ensure it would eventually be defeated and we could revert to Transit City.
Click to expand...
A year ago, they probably could have looked at changing the vehicle. But they've been stuck in limbo for a year, unable to even open the contracts (which they were going to have to do to reduce the order of vehicles) because they were waiting for City Council to approve the MOU they made with Ford.
 
Everything is in limbo right now. But if they were to build Ford's plan on Eglinton, they could have gone to Bombardier to evaluate the possibility of changing up the order to get subways for the Eglinton line instead of LRVs. If it would have cost too much to "cancel" the order, then yeah, stick with the LRVs. But if there was a way to work it out, I would have said go for it.

That said, it would be nice if Ford and Stintz could compromise and use Stintz's original compromise plan (Eglinton eastern section above-ground and extending Sheppard to Victoria Park, Finch BRT--my only issue would be making the Eglinton line's eastern section as fast as possible by ducking under intersections or being elevated or whatever it takes to make it a bona fide LRT).
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
That said, it would be nice if Ford and Stintz could compromise and use Stintz's original compromise plan (Eglinton eastern section above-ground and extending Sheppard to Victoria Park, Finch BRT--my only issue would be making the Eglinton line's eastern section as fast as possible by ducking under intersections or being elevated or whatever it takes to make it a bona fide LRT).
Click to expand...

Ford rejected Stintz's original compromise plan...his loss! :p
 
Tulse said:
So you don't think the city should abide by contracts?
Click to expand...

So once the city signs a contract they are never allowed to have an addendum and must follow through on what was signed. Addenda are not desirable, but they are often necessary.
 
BurlOak said:
So once the city signs a contract they are never allowed to have an addendum and must follow through on what was signed.
Click to expand...

Just like any contract, they can change it as long as the other party agrees to re-negotiate. Generally speaking, one party to a contract does not get to change it unilaterally. This isn't some sort of obscure notion, but a basic principle of contracts.
 
Curb cuts are terrific

Paleo said:
Curb cuts at all the stops? That's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Even with buses having an absolute right-of-way. P.S. GET RID OF ALL STREET CARS! Tear up the tracks, replace the cars with buses, nostalgia is why we still have the worthless and expensive penny.
 
RichA said:
Tear up the tracks, replace the cars with buses, nostalgia is why we still have the worthless and expensive penny.
Click to expand...

Are you going to pay for all that track to be taken up? Get out your chequebook! Money would be better spent elsewhere.

The penny is only "worthless" because our currency should be revalued 10 to 1 ... by your logic nostalgia is why we'll all soon be millionaires.
 
I'd start by selling the scrap iron to the Chinese

AlbertHWagstaff said:
Are you going to pay for all that track to be taken up? Get out your chequebook! Money would be better spent elsewhere.

The penny is only "worthless" because our currency should be revalued 10 to 1 ... by your logic nostalgia is why we'll all soon be millionaires.
Click to expand...

Whaaat?
 
Removing stops anywhere is likely a non-starter due to the nature of our public consultation methods. A small group of 20 locals will show up and speak on behalf of the 2,000 that didn't bother to show up. A councillor or planner will introduce the issue with language as loaded as possible to trigger an outcome of some of the 20 people screaming about how their service is being destroyed and how it was unacceptable. Of course, the city could just remove a surface stop without telling anyone and we'd accept it.

With rapid transit lines, stations needs to go wherever they need to go. If there's an intersection concession road with a bus route, obviously a stop goes there. For the most part, these obvious stops are 800m, 1000m, or 2000m. The question is how many stops should go in between. 800m or 1000m average spacing is fantastic. Everyone is then only a few hundred metres from a station. On the internet, every single person lives exactly halfway between stations and is an octogenarian needing a hip replacement who can't walk five feet. In reality, though, virtually all of the people, jobs, schools, and stores are at major intersections and probably 90+% of people are very well-served by 800m-1000m station spacing. If someone lives five or six blocks off the main road, they'll be five or six blocks from a station no matter how many stations you build, and building too many stations to try to improve upon that 90+% will only cost a fortune and start sapping the utility of a line.

But with a streetcar ROW, might as well have stops at least every 400m because vehicles will be stopping at mid-concession red lights, anyway...might as well let people on and off.

CDL.TO said:
Subway cars are cheaper than LRT vehicles.
Click to expand...

But really, the difference in the cost of vehicles is kinda trivial compared to the cost of actually building an underground transit line on Eglinton. It's kind of like worrying about when to cook dinner based on peak or off-peak hydro rates when you're cooking a meal of foie gras, truffles, and caviar. :)
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Removing stops anywhere is likely a non-starter due to the nature of our public consultation methods. A small group of 20 locals will show up and speak on behalf of the 2,000 that didn't bother to show up. A councillor or planner will introduce the issue with language as loaded as possible to trigger an outcome of some of the 20 people screaming about how their service is being destroyed and how it was unacceptable. Of course, the city could just remove a surface stop without telling anyone and we'd accept it.
Click to expand...

That is why I think Council should decide or approve the stops. The local Councillor is under too much pressure to yield to the few locals, but Council could decide based on what is best for the overall city - and get the local Councillor off the hook.
 
This is probably relevant here too. The following post was made in the King/Queen LRT circuit thread, but the same logic could also be applied to local bus routes.

dunkalunk said:
There are two things that would immediately improve the efficiency of streetcars at relatively little cost.

1) Signal Priority

New signals would not need to be installed, but instead, left-turrning traffic could be cleared from an intersection by using an advanced/delayed green when a streetcar is detected by the software. Of course, letting people off at the far side of the intersection would delay vehicle traffic, but that is sort of the point.

2) Stop Spacing

Stop spacing on the streetcar lines should be widened to 250-350m with a preference for far-side stops, especially in sections between Roncesvalles and the Don. From what I can recall, most streetcar stops in Toronto are nearside, which means it can take 2 full light-cycles for a streetcar to make it through an intersection.

I'm not sure how much either would cost, but adaptive signal priority for transit is something that would benefit all modes and should have been implemented by the city a long time ago and unbolting and moving a station shelter/sign can't be too expensive. In fact, if stops are reduced, that means there are more shelters along streetcar routes per stop.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top