News   Jul 19, 2024
Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon Topped Off in South Hill
 918     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
TTC's Next Big Step: Replacing Rick Leary
 3.9K     7 
News   Jul 19, 2024
Third Phase of Quad Residences Advances at York University
 1.2K     4 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

TheTigerMaster said:
Why would it be impossible? Just set forward lights to green when the LRV is approaching.
Click to expand...

You can't "just" set green lights. There is a defined amount of time that needs to be dedicated to each stage in the traffic light cycle. For example, if an LRV on Eglinton is approaching Victoria Park and Vic Park has a green signal, it still has to go through the full green, yellow, red cycle and pedestrian countdown before the LRV can get a green light.

This seems to be a good article: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.ca/2013/02/transit-signal-priority.html

Note that of the four potential techniques, the fourth one, phase rotation, doesn't seem to be considered an option in Toronto (in other words, we won't put the left-turn phase after the straight-through phase). Early green is often not an option because green phases are often already at the minimum required for pedestrians to safely cross the intersection. So you're left with phase insertion, which existed on Queens Quay before the recent construction started, and green extension, which exists on a number of streetcar and bus routes in Toronto today. These do not guarantee a green light.

Transit priority means less waiting at lights, not no waiting at lights.
 
As for the difference between the monorail and SkyTrain train lengths the answer is simple............I have no idea.

Advanced green lights can work on some systems but will NEVER work on TC. The reason is that due to it's high frequency it is impossible. What if you have one train arriving from the east and it doesn't have to wait but then a train arriving from the west arrives one minute later? It is impossible for green advanced lights for that vehicle so it waits the full light cycle. People do have to be able to cross the street as do the cars. This idea of no waiting at a intersection is a bold face lie and the TTC knows it but that doesn't stop them from espousing it.

When you have that many trains running down a main road with that huge number of stations then advanced lights mean very little. If the stations were much further apart ie 1 to 1.5 km then it may be doable but with the very tight distance between the stations it is absolutely impossible. The POP will make it faster than the current buses and the ROW will make it more reliable but the speed difference will be little and not any different from just putting an articulated bus down the same road using POP and ROW. The only difference there is that the ROW bus would cost a fraction as much and could be built in less than half the time and be far less disruptive to do so.
 
This is why in the median LRT can only get a maximum peak ridership of 8000 (versus a much higher peak for grade separated). After that any further improvement to signal priority adversely affects traffic.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Too bad that there isn't some kind of inexpensive, fully grade separated option that could work along Eglinton that politicians haven't considered... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If they could find such a solution, it would probably lead to more acceptance of transit funding and the rest of the Big Move. If only someone could find that elusive solution. ... :rolleyes:
 
BurlOak said:
If they could find such a solution, it would probably lead to more acceptance of transit funding and the rest of the Big Move. If only someone could find that elusive solution. ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh wait ... a monorail! I bet big business would happily pay for it to be installed!
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
what is at grade, above grade, grade seperated and under grade



I am ignorant, sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem.

Under/below grade is undeground. So like subway and underground sections of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

At grade means anything at ground level. This would be steetcars, busses, LRT at ground level, GO/CN Rail trains etc.. You may also hear to people refer to right of ways (ROW). An ROW is also at-grade, but runs down the middle of the street in a reseved lene.

Above grade is elevated. Vancouver's SkyTrain is an example of this.

Grade separated is anything that is not at grade (ground level). So basically, it means either below grade (underground) or above grade (elevated).
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Grade separated is anything that is not at grade (ground level). So basically, it means either below grade (underground) or above grade (elevated).
Click to expand...

Or at-grade but with level crossings removed (see: most major rail lines that have arterial roads either underpass or overpass the line). But yes, good explanation!
 
TheTigerMaster said:
No problem.

Under/below grade is undeground. So like subway and underground sections of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

At grade means anything at ground level. This would be steetcars, busses, LRT at ground level, GO/CN Rail trains etc.. You may also hear to people refer to right of ways (ROW). An ROW is also at-grade, but runs down the middle of the street in a reseved lene.

Above grade is elevated. Vancouver's SkyTrain is an example of this.

Grade separated is anything that is not at grade (ground level). So basically, it means either below grade (underground) or above grade (elevated).
Click to expand...
Thank You!
 
nfitz said:
Oh wait ... a monorail! I bet big business would happily pay for it to be installed!
Click to expand...

God knows a monorail would be cheaper to build, much faster, have triple the capacity, be cheaper to run, easier to build, faster to build, quieter, smoother, more reliable, and wouldn't inhibit traffic along the route. Then again, who would want to emulate the Japanese, Chinese, and Brazilians, since when do any of those places know anything about mass/rapid transit?
 
ssiguy2 said:
God knows a monorail would be cheaper to build, much faster, have triple the capacity, be cheaper to run, easier to build, faster to build, quieter, smoother, more reliable, and wouldn't inhibit traffic along the route.
Click to expand...
It's like shooting fish in a barrel ...
 
ssiguy2 said:
God knows a monorail would be cheaper to build, much faster, have triple the capacity, be cheaper to run, easier to build, faster to build, quieter, smoother, more reliable, and wouldn't inhibit traffic along the route. Then again, who would want to emulate the Japanese, Chinese, and Brazilians, since when do any of those places know anything about mass/rapid transit?
Click to expand...

As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.

The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.

The issue with monorails is that a monorail would have to ride several feet above the bottom of the tunnel to accommodate the tracks. This means that the tunnel may need to be wider, adding additional construction costs. On the other hand, light rail can run mere inches off the bottom of the tunnel. I know you're probably going to point out that light rail vehicles would require a pantograph. The good thing is that the pantograph can be compressed so that power lines can run inches above the vehicle. An LRV can also use a third rail for power collection, eliminating the need for a pantograph.

A monorail only makes sense if you're building a 100% above grade line. It cannot be used underground, or in a ROW and is inefficient for at-grade use. This makes it totally inappropiate for a city like Toronto and is probably why the technology has failed to get widespread adoption in real (not Disneyland) mass transit systems.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top