Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Steve X]

The SRT is automated already. So between Laird and Mt. Dennis it'll be the same. The operator acts as a guard, or pair up with a another employee to act as a fare inspector.

I highly doubt the operator/guard would be a fare inspector. The operator would sit in the cab all the time watching for potential hazards and be the person closing doors. Fare inspection is better off with 3-4 officer team in most of the day. Alternatively they could just check everyone's fare at Eglinton Station in rush hour. TTC said they will change it's bylaw to allow inspection on any part of the system.

Having an operator on board really helps when things go wrong. On the SkyTrains, sometimes Translink think the trains were block by debris till their employees arrive and realize the train actual ran over someone. TTC handles these situation much better than Translink does. In the last board meeting, some of the board members were question if it's absolutely necessary (by law) to have the emergency alarm on board. Andy Byford dodged the question but did say it have saved lives in the past and is a good thing to have despite all the delays from misuses. An operator sitting on board in the cab is absolutely necessary to be able to request for proper help.

 

[smallspy]

That's what makes it consistent. Every train makes every stop. Some stops may only be a few seconds at some times of day, but that's a lot less variability than not decelerating, stopping, and starting.

Line 2 Islington westbound to Kipling is no picnic at some times of day... it can be a long wait for one's train to make it to the platform at Kipling if things are bunched up ahead. But the subway train doesn't dog it all the way from Runnymede, the operators go full speed until they catch up with the ones ahead. I don't see that on 501..... travel time from Roncy to Humber was anyone's guess (and the new shuttle buses are proving much better).

- Paul

But it isn't consistant. Why does the B-D need 110 minutes to make a round trip in the middle of the day, but only 97 at night?

The signals haven't changed. There aren't fewer stations being served. The route isn't shorter.

And thus my point. The number of stops isn't the final bearing on how long a route will take to run. It does have a bearing, yes, but it's most certainly not the only one.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

But it isn't consistant. Why does the B-D need 110 minutes to make a round trip in the middle of the day, but only 97 at night?

The signals haven't changed. There aren't fewer stations being served. The route isn't shorter.

And thus my point. The number of stops isn't the final bearing on how long a route will take to run. It does have a bearing, yes, but it's most certainly not the only one.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I think we are saying the same thing, sort of. On the subway, the running time between stops doesn't change over the day. Once you know how many stops there are, and how far apart they are, you have a constant running time.

What changes is dwell time in stations. Trains take longer to load/unload in peak periods, yes. That accumulates over the length of the run, so you schedule longer running times at peak. However, on leaving the platform, a train takes exactly as long to reach the next station as they would at any other time of the day. (OK, if trains bunch up, they may run on yellow lights at slower speed, but even at rush hour the schedule tries to avoid this.)

I agree- If you assume that LRT always stops at every stop, then it's the same for LRT. The number of stops doesn't matter, dwell time is what influences trip time. I'm questioning if this is the scenario being designed. In the extremities, if we design with the intermediate local stops included, these stops may have no one boarding or requesting a stop. Some LRT's will blow right through the stop, just as the 501 frequently does at Colborne Park and South Kingsway. That results in a much more variable running time than if they are designed to stop everywhere.

You can schedule the same way as the subway - allow more time at peak, on the assumption that more LRT's will stop more often at those times, and for longer. But there is a limit to how often this will be true. You will have a greater number of cases where the LRT gets ahead of schedule.

If you limit the stops to the main intersections where there is heavy transfer business, then the actual operation most closely approaches subway conditions....the LRT stops at every stop. We're back to dwell time as the variable factor.

The issue is not "more" stops versus "less" stops or "longer" trips versus "shorter" trips - it's consistency. Variability will play havoc with traffic priority signalling or timed signalling. The solution is inevitably operators electing to coast....there is an art to streetcars coasting towards a stale green when the operator wants to hit the yellow. They use the forced stop to kill time through one light cycle.

The point I am beating to death is, build in whatever number of stops you want....but don't allow coasting to creep into the design. Low-use stops influence schedule which influences coasting.

- Paul

 

[am29]

tbh they should've just dug under the intersections in the above ground part so they avoid the light. Don't think it would've added that much to the project. Would probably save a lot of time and cause less traffic disruption.

 

[Zach6668]

tbh they should've just dug under the intersections in the above ground part so they avoid the light. Don't think it would've added that much to the project. Would probably save a lot of time and cause less traffic disruption.

There are currently 15 signalized intersections between Laird and Kennedy that you're suggesting we should have tunneled under. That would most certainly add a ton to the project. Utility relocation being a huge expense nobody ever thinks about, plus the actual act of tunneling, mining, or however you expect to do it, and somehow with *less* surface disruption? Not a chance.

Would it speed up trip times? Maybe. Probably vehicle trip times, but where are you putting the stops/stations? Under the intersections? So now you're adding the cost of elevators, escalators, stairs, all sorts of additional concrete, etc. No? You'll put them before the portals? Now you're adding a bunch of walking time, and maybe roundabout walking depending on how you expect users to get to the middle of the road stops. Signalized crosswalks? That'll slow auto-traffic down.

Can we just accept that you can't get across a large, bustling city at absurdly high speeds? Movement takes time. You could build a two-stop, 20-km tunnel to whisk you across the city at the highest speeds, but it'll be useful for a tiny amount of people. Stop spacing, running speeds, intersection treatments, grade separations, etc - these are all compromises. There's no clear "better way", it all just depends on your specific needs. Not everyone needs the same things as you, so compromises are made, and compromises are made when limited capital dollars are at play, as well.

Crosstown will be a useful transit line. You'll be able to get across the city in a reasonable time, and to dozens of points in between.

 

[Steve X]

Maybe they could have grade separated (elevate) the Victoria Park, Eglinton Square and Pharmacy section. It avoids a secession of 3 lights in a very busy area. The rest of the signals are manageable being at grade. Sometime like this could have costed $200m

 

[lead82]

300-400m spacing would be fine. In Toronto we often have spacing of 200m or less. The fact that we have near-side and far-side bus stops on some corners is ridiculous. The number of stops needs to be balanced with speed.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Maybe they could have grade separated (elevate) the Victoria Park, Eglinton Square and Pharmacy section. It avoids a secession of 3 lights in a very busy area. The rest of the signals are manageable being at grade. Sometime like this could have costed $200m

Same problem with tunneling you have to put in elevators and stairs to get up to the stops, plus what happens with the snow on it odes it just fall onto the road or does it sit up there?

 

[Hopkins123]

Maybe they could have grade separated (elevate) the Victoria Park, Eglinton Square and Pharmacy section. It avoids a secession of 3 lights in a very busy area. The rest of the signals are manageable being at grade. Sometime like this could have costed $200m

The Victoria Park station would be ideal for grade separation. The parkette is already there for the Crosstown's disposal. To my knowledge 3 pedestrians were killed at the O'Connor/Vic Park/Eglinton triangle within the past 5 years. Not a very safe place for surface boarding of trains. Just imagine how many people will try to jaywalk and dart across traffic if they're running late and see a train on its way. It's likely a disaster in the making not to build this section in a trench.

Frankly the land use of all of the Golden Mile screams to grade separate the whole stretch.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Is the Science Centre Station underground at Don Mills? If it is, the. Won't there be 5 changes in grade along the Crosstown? At Mount Dennis, Liard, Don mills, Don mills, Kennedy. I feel like this is inefficient and should be underground all the way, but it's too late for that

 

[W. K. Lis]

Is the Science Centre Station underground at Don Mills? If it is, the. Won't there be 5 changes in grade along the Crosstown? At Mount Dennis, Liard, Don mills, Don mills, Kennedy. I feel like this is inefficient and should be underground all the way, but it's too late for that

A streetcar can take an 8% grade, while a light rail vehicle is restricted to a 5% grade. A heavy rail vehicle is preferred to restrict itself to 3%. So those grade changes along the Crosstown are minimal for a light rail, a heavy rail setup would have to be more level.

 

[Johnny Au]

A streetcar can take an 8% grade, while a light rail vehicle is restricted to a 5% grade. A heavy rail vehicle is preferred to restrict itself to 3%. So those grade changes along the Crosstown are minimal for a light rail, a heavy rail setup would have to be more level.

There goes plans to have heavy rail or even light rail along Dufferin Street

 

[sixrings]

I thought the new streetcars and lrt could both do that incline. Maybe I wa mistaken.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If a streetcar can take the steep Bathurst Hill at Davenport, it would pass the acceptance test. If a light rail vehicle may not, unless it's empty.

 

[junctionist]

A streetcar can take an 8% grade, while a light rail vehicle is restricted to a 5% grade. A heavy rail vehicle is preferred to restrict itself to 3%. So those grade changes along the Crosstown are minimal for a light rail, a heavy rail setup would have to be more level.

Heavy rail subways can handle 6% grades if they use rubber tires like the Montreal Metro. John Martins-Manteiga mentioned that as an advantage of subway trains with rubber tires in his book, Metro: Design in Motion.