Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[nfitz]

11 or maybe even 12 years of construction for a line that stops at red lights on the surface sections.

That's a bit unfair - they didn't start the surface section for years after tunnelled section - and it's already finished. If they'd done the whole thing at surface (which wasn't really an option through Yonge) they'd have been finished years ago.

Compare to FInch Line 6 - construction is moving MUCH faster - even with the cut-and-cover underground terminals.

 

[imerk]

That's because the automobile loving councillors, politicians, and bureaucrats have vetoed any real improvements to true transit priority traffic signals.The single-occupant motor vehicles must go first when they make a left turn.

To be fair, there are good reasons why the left-turn phase precedes the through phase. Fully protected left turns become necessary when we implement centre running LRTs and streetcars at intersections, since you can't have an automobile turn left in the path of the transit vehicle. Ontario doesn't use lagging left-turn phases because they pose many disadvantages including safety and operational. Leading lefts are predictable and allow the queues to clear at the beginning of the phase so that through vehicles aren't waiting, plus you avoid the "yellow trap" when left turn phases start at different times.

Further, having the LRT through phase as a dedicated phase while no other vehicles are processed through the intersection is very inefficient. My understanding is that TSP still exists along the line in the form of shortened conflicting phases when the LRT is waiting and extended through phases when the LRT is nearing the intersection at the end of its cycle. Sure, we will still have the LRT waiting for advance left turn phases during some specific arrival times, but having lagging left turns just isn't Ontario policy for the reasons mentioned above. This is just one of the disadvantages of at-grade LRTs.

 

[crs1026]

My understanding is that TSP still exists along the line in the form of shortened conflicting phases when the LRT is waiting and extended through phases when the LRT is nearing the intersection at the end of its cycle. Sure, we will still have the LRT waiting for advance left turn phases during some specific arrival times, but having lagging left turns just isn't Ontario policy for the reasons mentioned above. This is just one of the disadvantages of at-grade LRTs.

Is there any reason why the signalling can't be set up to detect a waiting (as opposed to approaching) LRV and give it a through signal ahead of the left turn signal, only when there is an LRV waiting.... if not, just proceed directly to the green arrow for left turn vehicles?

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

Is there any reason why the signalling can't be set up to detect a waiting (as opposed to approaching) LRV and give it a through signal ahead of the left turn signal, only when there is an LRV waiting.... if not, just proceed directly to the green arrow for left turn vehicles?

- Paul

The central track requires "dedicated" left turn cycles - i.e. a specific advanced left then when the general green phase is activated left turns are prohibited.

So if you don't provide the dedicated left turn cycle to prioritize LRVs, you basically force the left turn cycle to wait an entire signal cycle as they can't be shifted to the "end" of the cycle.

To provide greater priority to LRVs, you would have to figure out an alternative method of accommodating left turns. If the city was smart they would have investigated Michigan lefts or provided a right turn then U turn movement at major intersections to remove the left turn cycle at major roadways.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Is there any reason why the signalling can't be set up to detect a waiting (as opposed to approaching) LRV and give it a through signal ahead of the left turn signal, only when there is an LRV waiting.... if not, just proceed directly to the green arrow for left turn vehicles?

- Paul

Why left turn traffic signals first? There are jurisdictions where the left turners have to wait till the end of the straight traffic or pedestrians. In Ontario, they HAVE to give the left turning single-occupant motorists priority. That has to change. Can't the signals change depending upon the approaching or waiting light rail vehicles? Or is that too complicated for the bureaucrats.

 

[Tuscani01]

Why left turn traffic signals first? There are jurisdictions where the left turners have to wait till the end of the straight traffic or pedestrians. In Ontario, they HAVE to give the left turning single-occupant motorists priority. That has to change. Can't the signals change depending upon the approaching or waiting light rail vehicles? Or is that too complicated for the bureaucrats.

Spadina and Lakeshore has the left turn phase last, so its not like we don't already have it in Toronto.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Spadina and Lakeshore has the left turn phase last, so its not like we don't already have it in Toronto.

Depends upon the "veto" power of the local councillor.

From link.

 

[TorontoBun]

RE: Left turns, I'd believe that only the transit signal should go green for the LRV(s) to cross before going back to red. Then the left turn phase can proceed as timed before the rest of traffic is allowed to cross.
It shouldn't be complicated and would help in providing some semblance of transit priority.

Ideally, the transit signal should be allowed to go green on any of the phases where all lights are red, since the delay to traffic shouldn't take more than the time it takes for an LRV to cross the intersection.

 

[MisterF]

LRT with complete priority over other traffic isn't some unheard of concept, we've had it in Canada since the 1970s. And those cities have trains running every 4-5 minutes in peak hours, which means that each of those intersections sees a train every 2 minutes. If they can do it on suburban arterials there, there's no reason why we can't the same here.

That's a bit unfair - they didn't start the surface section for years after tunnelled section - and it's already finished. If they'd done the whole thing at surface (which wasn't really an option through Yonge) they'd have been finished years ago.

Compare to FInch Line 6 - construction is moving MUCH faster - even with the cut-and-cover underground terminals.

The problem is that the unreliability of the surface section will affect how the underground section operates. For this amount of time and money it could have been designed properly.

 

[superelevation]

That's a bit unfair - they didn't start the surface section for years after tunnelled section - and it's already finished. If they'd done the whole thing at surface (which wasn't really an option through Yonge) they'd have been finished years ago.

Compare to FInch Line 6 - construction is moving MUCH faster - even with the cut-and-cover underground terminals.

There is *no* reason it couldn't have been on the surface at Yonge, the street is plenty wide.

 

[EnviroTO]

There is *no* reason it couldn't have been on the surface at Yonge, the street is plenty wide.

There are reasons:
1. It is not as wide as required. On St.Clair and Eglinton East in the Golden Mile you can fit four lanes, plus left turning lanes, plus transit ROW, plus sidewalks. On central Eglinton you would need to sacrifice something because only five lanes fit and many properties will be using the curb lane for pick-up/drop-off... something that definitely doesn't happen in the Golden Mile.
2. Intersections that can't be closed are closer together. This means more stopping and slower service. The service starts to be more like a St.Clair streetcar than an LRT service.
3. Risk of pedestrian conflicts and congestion impacts. There are far more people walking around near Yonge and Eglinton and that means the drivers need to operate slower. Traffic congestion is higher increasing the likelihood of delay getting through intersections.

 

[smallspy]

The central track requires "dedicated" left turn cycles - i.e. a specific advanced left then when the general green phase is activated left turns are prohibited.

So if you don't provide the dedicated left turn cycle to prioritize LRVs, you basically force the left turn cycle to wait an entire signal cycle as they can't be shifted to the "end" of the cycle.

To provide greater priority to LRVs, you would have to figure out an alternative method of accommodating left turns. If the city was smart they would have investigated Michigan lefts or provided a right turn then U turn movement at major intersections to remove the left turn cycle at major roadways.

Remember when they were recommending Michigan Lefts for the Eglinton Line when they first started the outreach program and public meetings in, oh, 2007 or so?

The funny thing is that at the 3 or 4 meetings I went to, I didn't hear a lot of static about them. The staff took the time to explain to everyone why they felt that it was the right idea at that time. It was only once those plans got published and more widely disseminated to the public that the councillors from the outlying wards started making noise about them.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

The problem is that the unreliability of the surface section will affect how the underground section operates. For this amount of time and money it could have been designed properly.

It's a little early to conclude that it will be unreliable. Waterloo has kept their service very reliable through worse conditions (though I admit service there is relatively infrequent).

The Leslie intersection could certainly been better designed - why they didn't go for a south-side alignment through that area I don't know. I'm not sure it would have even cost more money - perhaps less with the simpler arrangement. It's almost like someone was trying to protect a future Leslie extension to the south.

Tunelling from Don Mills to Kennedy would have added a lot more cost. Though perhaps elevated might have been a better compromise - and a lot quicker to construct.

 

[Richard White]

Tunelling from Don Mills to Kennedy would have added a lot more cost. Though perhaps elevated might have been a better compromise - and a lot quicker to construct.

Elevated lines are hideous. Even the RT is only elevated where needed and only because you cannot have heavy rail interacting with traffic if you want to keep it at subway speeds..

As someone who lives near and travels through the Golden Mile regularly I would be vehemently against Elevated lines. This is Toronto, not Chicago.

 

[Adjei]

Elevated lines are hideous. Even the RT is only elevated where needed and only because you cannot have heavy rail interacting with traffic if you want to keep it at subway speeds..

As someone who lives near and travels through the Golden Mile regularly I would be vehemently against Elevated lines. This is Toronto, not Chicago.

Hideous for Toronto but not hideous for Amsterdam, Sydney, or even Montreal which look miles better than Toronto.