News   Oct 23, 2020
 3.3K     2 
News   Oct 23, 2020
 573     0 
News   Oct 23, 2020
 1.5K     0 

Eglinton West LRT | Metrolinx

NoahB

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
208
Reaction score
530
The crosstown cannot be automated if it runs next to cars and pedestrians. The fully grade-separated route will allow the trains to run with automation from Laird all the way to Renforth. (basically Line 1) East of Laird, it would run like a streetcar. West of Renforth is still a question mark that will depend on whether the line is actually seperated from traffic and pedestrians.

Spending the extra money now makes sense if you think of the line as built for the future.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,779
Reaction score
6,484
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
What if we can improve the efficiency of LRT crossings?

Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems have made a major comeback since many cities around the world decided to tear up their tram tracks decades ago. In many Canadian cities, LRT systems are being embraced in order to accommodate trends in rapid population growth and increasing traffic congestion. However, intersections where LRT systems cross local traffic pose a significant challenge for everyone due to the heightened complexity and safety concerns. The design of at-grade crossings can have major impacts on the overall efficiency and safety of an LRT system, and are more important now than ever before.

From link.

What crossing technologies are available?

Currently, there is variety of options available for an LRT crossing, including regular audible and visual warning systems (bells and flashing lights), crossing gates, Transit Signal Priority (TSP), and grade separation.

Audible and visual warning signs: Amongst these options, the simplest, most common, and lowest cost is to install bells and flashing lights at the crossing area to warn the traffic and pedestrian flow of an approaching LRT vehicle. This solution can be effective when both rail and traffic volume are low, however it is a “bare-minimum” warning system. While inexpensive to implement, it does not optimize traffic nor LRT flow, and can result in operational and potentially unsafe interferences from pedestrians and cars accidentally entering the LRT right of way.

Crossing Gates: They are often installed for further protection. Transport Canada provides criteria in its Grade Crossing Handbook6 to determine whether crossing gates are required at a railway crossing, with main considerations being speed, traffic, and LRT volume. When implementing a full-preemption strategy, LRT operation is protected by gates and has full priority over vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. However, this can be disruptive. According to a City of Edmonton report, a vehicle can spend up to 16 minutes in traffic at crossing gates and the GHG emissions produced from cars while idling behind gates could become a major concern to the environment. An alternative is to apply “soft-preemption”, where the priority of a Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) is determined based on certain criteria such as clearance of the previous train and real-time traffic volume on opposing movements.

Traffic Signals/Transit Signal Priority: Another way to control an LRT crossing is by using traffic signals, where an LRV is treated as a regular transit vehicle and should obey traffic signals. This method can be combined with TSP which provides an operational strategy to better facilitate the movements of in-service transit vehicles through such intersections. Unlike preemption methods, TSP does not abruptly stop any traffic to fully protect another. Its main objective is to improve transit efficiency and schedule adherence, while minimizing the impact to local traffic. TSP systems are usually made up of four components: Transit Vehicle Detection System; Request Generator; Priority Control Strategies and Management Software. TSP can be implemented in various ways:
  • Passive priority (serves the transit phase all the time, irrespective of a transit vehicle being present)
  • Active priority (Actively adjusts signal timings based on approaching transit vehicles using techniques such as green extension, early green, actuated transit phases, phase insertion/rotation)
  • Adaptive priority (intakes real-time data from all modes of transportation /requests to determine phase and cycle length for efficient traffic flow)
TSP can be applied unconditionally (always prioritize transit vehicles) or conditionally (only prioritize transit vehicles based on certain criteria, such as a behind-schedule vehicle). TSP can be applied at an isolated intersection, as well as along a major transit corridor where peer-to-peer communications can be used between signal controllers to maximize its benefits. Peer-to-peer communications allow the signal controllers to communicate LRV locations and estimated travel times between intersections. Accompanying any TSP deployment with a traffic signal optimization study will also improve the overall performance of the corridor. A simple TSP presentation for an LRT intersection is shown below.


Each case could require a different control strategy. Many cities have generally indicated a 15% saving in transit vehicle travel time after implementing TSP, with minor impacts on vehicular traffic. The effectiveness of a TSP intersection depends on many factors, such as traffic volume, vehicle and pedestrian flow, priority algorithm, detection methods, as well as the location of the transit stops. It has been found that TSP is more effective if the stops are placed far-side (after the intersection), since transit vehicles would not be stopped at the intersection after dwelling at the stop, allowing for better prediction of arrival time and schedule adherence. As the intersection is controlled by regular traffic signals, it would promote a connected and integrated community while improving accessibility by eliminating physical barriers and noise from a typical gate crossing system. Simulations are widely applied to evaluate the impact of TSP and many studies are being developed to achieve further improvements.

Grade separation: The LRT is separated from road vehicles and pedestrian traffic by having its own dedicated ROW through an elevated, trenched, or underground structure. All traffic flows involved in this crossing would be well protected and safe. However, the cost to build and the construction time required introduces inefficiency. It could also become a physical wall or barrier separating a neighborhood and it can be challenging to be integrated into the community if it is elevated or trenched, especially in a low-rise dwelling area. This would not be beneficial for building a connected and integrated community.




 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
367
The crosstown cannot be automated if it runs next to cars and pedestrians. The fully grade-separated route will allow the trains to run with automation from Laird all the way to Renforth. (basically Line 1) East of Laird, it would run like a streetcar. West of Renforth is still a question mark that will depend on whether the line is actually seperated from traffic and pedestrians.

Spending the extra money now makes sense if you think of the line as built for the future.
There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels. I would also not characterize the surface section as Streetcars. except maybe comparable to the Queensway.

Spending the extra money now means we can't build another line now,
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
17,779
Reaction score
6,484
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels. I would also not characterize the surface section as Streetcars. except maybe comparable to the Queensway.

Spending the extra money now means we can't build another line now,
They could run the streetcars on The Queensway with near LRT performance if it wasn't for the automobile followers in Toronto's Transportation Department.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,336
Reaction score
7,953
They could run the streetcars on The Queensway with near LRT performance if it wasn't for the automobile followers in Toronto's Transportation Department.
And a couple further fixes. There's a slow order on the last part into Humber Loop, supposedly because the recent reconstruction wasn't up to snuff. And, the loop is now too small for the length of multiple laying-over Flexities (the schedule is padded, so many have lots of dwell time). Operators tend to "dog it" from High Park westwards, to be sure that they will have space at the platform to unload. Otherwise, they have to stop and sit just east of the platform, with a load of impatient passengers still on board and demanding that the doors be opened, which is contrary to operating instructions (for good reason).

- Paul
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,907
Reaction score
3,369
There is no need for automation, or for full grade separation, just ducking under a few major intersections will yield most all of the speed benefits of tunnels
Yes, but the city sabotaged this by purposefully creating a report that inflated the costs by creating "Taj Mahals" at each intersection and elevating the track rather lowering the road down like an underpass, or a combination of each.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
1,237
Yes, but the city sabotaged this by purposefully creating a report that inflated the costs by creating "Taj Mahals" at each intersection and elevating the track rather lowering the road down like an underpass, or a combination of each.
The city is bias in creating a less structural footprint project. They rather have the line fit in the current environment than to build a fast rail link which would be fine if this city wasn't so sparely spaced with destinations over a hour away.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,768
Reaction score
585
And a couple further fixes. There's a slow order on the last part into Humber Loop, supposedly because the recent reconstruction wasn't up to snuff. And, the loop is now too small for the length of multiple laying-over Flexities (the schedule is padded, so many have lots of dwell time). Operators tend to "dog it" from High Park westwards, to be sure that they will have space at the platform to unload. Otherwise, they have to stop and sit just east of the platform, with a load of impatient passengers still on board and demanding that the doors be opened, which is contrary to operating instructions (for good reason).

- Paul
If that's the situation (you have an extra vehicle laying over), is it actually needed? Can't it just run out of service to get out of the way? Or be a bonus service that isn't scheduled?
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,574
Reaction score
2,239
Sure, it can! The question is . . . will it? Most past evidence and examples says no, I mean the TTC has a lot of TSP installed in reality in different places it just isn't very good which kind of makes the point. The sad feeling I have is that it may be better to build reliability in to the project than to rely on policy and implementation.
Past evidence tells us that overbuilding infrastructure where it's not needed is a colossal waste of money. That's exactly why the system is bursting at the seams. We keep implementing large scale suburban expansions that aren't necessary based on ridership.

Despite all these examples, we keep doing it.

I guess you're asking if we'll put the politics aside and build transit with some common sense. I'd hope so...it just doesn't seem we're going to get a government anytime soon that's interested in listing to experts.
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
261
Reaction score
606
Past evidence tells us that overbuilding infrastructure where it's not needed is a colossal waste of money. That's exactly why the system is bursting at the seams. We keep implementing large scale suburban expansions that aren't necessary based on ridership.

Despite all these examples, we keep doing it.

I guess you're asking if we'll put the politics aside and build transit with some common sense. I'd hope so...it just doesn't seem we're going to get a government anytime soon that's interested in listing to experts.
The only real example I can think of is the Sheppard Subway, but even then the issues with that line stem from horrible city planning, and the reluctance of the city to support it in the same way North York did with its city center, before the amalgamation. The Sheppard Corridor was meant to be another North York Centre, with stations being directly integrated into a dense urban area. By significantly cutting the scope of the project, and refusing to upzone the area around the subway line and try and push for Transit Oriented Development, the Sheppard Subway was effectively designed to fail. Apart from that, I can't really find any examples that support your claim.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,574
Reaction score
2,239
The only real example I can think of is the Sheppard Subway, but even then the issues with that line stem from horrible city planning, and the reluctance of the city to support it in the same way North York did with its city center, before the amalgamation. The Sheppard Corridor was meant to be another North York Centre, with stations being directly integrated into a dense urban area. By significantly cutting the scope of the project, and refusing to upzone the area around the subway line and try and push for Transit Oriented Development, the Sheppard Subway was effectively designed to fail. Apart from that, I can't really find any examples that support your claim.
At the time the Sheppard Line was proposed and approved, transit experts were already pointing out it was a mistake to build a subway extension there. It didn't have the residential and commercial density necessary to justify it. Time has proven them correct.

The last time there was any subway expansion downtown was over 50 years ago.

All subway expansion since has been in the suburbs. The TYSSE, Sheppard and now the SSE and EWLRT are all projects that could be well served (and arguably better served) by different forms of transit. Instead we're building full capacity subways (or in the case of the EWLRT, burying it).

Where has that led us?

Repeating the same mistakes of the past 50 years seems rather foolish to me.
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
261
Reaction score
606
At the time the Sheppard Line was proposed and approved, transit experts were already pointing out it was a mistake to build a subway extension there. It didn't have the residential and commercial density necessary to justify it. Time has proven them correct.

The last time there was any subway expansion downtown was over 50 years ago.

All subway expansion since has been in the suburbs. The TYSSE, Sheppard and now the SSE and EWLRT are all projects that could be well served (and arguably better served) by different forms of transit. Instead we're building full capacity subways (or in the case of the EWLRT, burying it).

Where has that led us?

Repeating the same mistakes of the past 50 years seems rather foolish to me.
You're looking at this with a very closed-minded approach. While I could argue that TYSSE could've easily been built in a much cheaper fashion, to say that a full capacity subway to Vaughan wasn't justified isn't exactly correct. People here seem to not understand that one of the things that hurt rapid transit projects is when there is a need to do pointless transfers and mode changes. One of the worst examples of this was the Sheppard East LRT, where if you were travelling from Scarborough to North York, you would have to make a transfer onto the Sheppard Line, just because you wanted to spend a lot less money on an extension. If you needed to get to the Yonge Line, you would have to transfer twice for seemingly no reason. The same logic can be applied to TYSSE. Sure you could've found a much cheaper technology to build the extension, but all that means is if you want to get to someplace in Toronto (not necessarily just downtown), you'd have to ride the viva orange to VMC, then take this TYSSE line down to Sheppard West, and from there ride the University line to wherever. This is what kills rider enthusiasm. When you have to constantly leave the train to make connections, you're further discouraging the use of rapid transit, and are pushing people to take the car places. So what if the immediate density of TYSSE doesn't justify a full heavy rail subway? Not only will the subway help push new developments (which is happening tenfold since unlike the Sheppard Line, Vaughan is really pushing for a large amount of densification around the subway extension), but if it can be used to funnel riders directly into Toronto through Viva Rapidway connections as well as park and riders from Highway 407, in that sense its entirely justified. The same exact thing could be said about SSE. Why should the residents of Scarborough have to deal with a pointless (and rather long) transfer at Kennedy, instead of having a train service that runs directly through Kennedy? By offering more direct services to destinations, you're increasing transit accessibility tenfold. The less you have to leave the train to get to another, the better. A good example of proper design can be found in Paris where when designing the metro, they set a rule to have every destination be accessible from anywhere with 2 or fewer transfers.Having random transfers to different modes hurts this philosophy.
 

Coolstar

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
752
Reaction score
995
Location
Toronto
You're looking at this with a very closed-minded approach. While I could argue that TYSSE could've easily been built in a much cheaper fashion, to say that a full capacity subway to Vaughan wasn't justified isn't exactly correct. People here seem to not understand that one of the things that hurt rapid transit projects is when there is a need to do pointless transfers and mode changes. One of the worst examples of this was the Sheppard East LRT, where if you were travelling from Scarborough to North York, you would have to make a transfer onto the Sheppard Line, just because you wanted to spend a lot less money on an extension. If you needed to get to the Yonge Line, you would have to transfer twice for seemingly no reason. The same logic can be applied to TYSSE. Sure you could've found a much cheaper technology to build the extension, but all that means is if you want to get to someplace in Toronto (not necessarily just downtown), you'd have to ride the viva orange to VMC, then take this TYSSE line down to Sheppard West, and from there ride the University line to wherever. This is what kills rider enthusiasm. When you have to constantly leave the train to make connections, you're further discouraging the use of rapid transit, and are pushing people to take the car places. So what if the immediate density of TYSSE doesn't justify a full heavy rail subway? Not only will the subway help push new developments (which is happening tenfold since unlike the Sheppard Line, Vaughan is really pushing for a large amount of densification around the subway extension), but if it can be used to funnel riders directly into Toronto through Viva Rapidway connections as well as park and riders from Highway 407, in that sense its entirely justified. The same exact thing could be said about SSE. Why should the residents of Scarborough have to deal with a pointless (and rather long) transfer at Kennedy, instead of having a train service that runs directly through Kennedy? By offering more direct services to destinations, you're increasing transit accessibility tenfold. The less you have to leave the train to get to another, the better. A good example of proper design can be found in Paris where when designing the metro, they set a rule to have every destination be accessible from anywhere with 2 or fewer transfers.Having random transfers to different modes hurts this philosophy.
I agree with you but I honestly don't mind making an extra transfer if it means serving more areas with the SLRT and the EELRT in Scarborough. Though I actually do enjoy transfering lines more than other people.

1601261024906.png
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
1,765
I agree with you but I honestly don't mind making an extra transfer if it means serving more areas with the SLRT and the EELRT in Scarborough. Though I actually do enjoy transfering lines more than other people.

View attachment 272289
I agree that an extra transfer is not the end of the world, but I have an issue with those two pictures placed together; they are not apples-to-apples comparison.

First of all, the LRT network on the left would cost substantially more than the subway extension on the right. The reasonable comparison would be "the LRT-only network" versus "the combination of the subway extension and some LRT lines" for the same total cost.

And secondly, the pictures are made to look like there is no transit at all in the areas on the right where the subway does not reach. While in reality they have frequent bus routes and express buses. There is a benefit of upgrading from bus to LRT, but it is not as huge as the benefit of upgrading from nothing to LRT.

On the other hand, the subway extension shortens many bus rides because they switch to a new subway station located closer. In that sense, the subway extension serves quite a few areas that aren't within a walking distance from a subway station.
 

Top