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

[Jonny5]

That's how the TTC's TSP largely works too - only engaged if vehicles are late to increase reliability.

Are you talking about Green Holds for TTC surface vehicles? I didn't know they were that sophisticated. Has it always been that way since they implemented them, or is this new?
Does this also mean there is no ability to respond to vehicles on detours or the run-as-directed units as they are not tied to a regular schedule in that case?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Are you talking about Green Holds for TTC surface vehicles? I didn't know they were that sophisticated. Has it always been that way since they implemented them, or is this new?
Does this also mean there is no ability to respond to vehicles on detours or the run-as-directed units as they are not tied to a regular schedule in that case?

I know the TTC has green holds for the 504 through the core, and I believe that Transportation Services has been implementing it more on key high traffic bus routes as well.

From what I recall the 504 TSP has some actual priority for streetcars on the smaller signals as well. Major intersections like Spadina still make the streetcar wait like normal.

 

[smallspy]

That's how the TTC's TSP largely works too - only engaged if vehicles are late to increase reliability.

Absolutely not.

When it is engaged, it always works when it detects a vehicle. There is no interface with any of the scheduling software, or onboard equipment that monitors that kind of thing.

Metrolinx has indicated that the Crosstown will behave like this as well, if the trains are on time, they will not have priority, but will have priority if running behind schedule. It will mean longer travel times, but also should mean that the trains should run relatively on schedule. I.e. if they get held up at a light or two early on the surface run and are taking longer than they should be to get across the surface section, the last few lights will be prioritized to make sure they make the run in the planned time period.

Where have they said this? I haven't seen it written anywhere, and it was never mentionned in-person at any of the meetings.

It is absolutely possible that the system will be configured like this however, as there is much more integration between the scheduling and signalling systems on the line.

Yeah, that’s how I thought it worked. What you describe as a pre-emptive green would be the transit signal getting a green before the lead fully protected left turn I presume.

I suppose that is possible, but I can't recall ever seeing it work this way.

What I have seen the system do though is shorten the green cycle of the crossing street in order to accelerate the green for the Rapidway.

Dan

 

[innsertnamehere]

IIRC that's what Metrolinx had said in some consultations.

 

[youngblood]

New blog post from Metrolinx

 

[toronto647]

Development along Eglinton Avenue East from Victoria Park to Birchmount. Close to 100 new condos/mixed use buildings have been proposed. Also this isn't including majority of the south side of Eglinton which I anticipate proposals coming in for in the coming months. Good luck to the EGLRT East corridor along this route going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

The City should get funding from each of these developers to tunnel the east side of the LRT imo in exchange for permits.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Development along Eglinton Avenue East from Victoria Park to Birchmount. Close to 100 new condos/mixed use buildings have been proposed. Also this isn't including majority of the south side of Eglinton which I anticipate proposals coming in for in the coming months. Good luck to the EGLRT East corridor along this route going to be a disaster waiting to happen.

The City should get funding from each of these developers to tunnel the east side of the LRT imo in exchange for permits.

View attachment 387261

You mean none of the parking lots were designated as "heritage sites"? Oh the humanity! Or inhumanity, depending on your point of view.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Crosstown LRT breaks through to connect Cedarvale Station with Eglinton West TTC Station​

From link.

New images from the Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) construction project show a number of interesting intersects – from transit lines to where customers will soon pay for their rides.

Here’s a ‘breakdown’ – including a very real one.

Workers at Cedarvale Station recently smashed through a concrete slab that separated the pedestrian tunnels connecting Cedarvale Station to Eglinton West TTC Station. After installing the steel that will support the opening, the team will move on to tiling and ceiling panel works. (Metrolinx photo)

 

[Voltz]

could've made the station boxes smaller by using less cars per train and saved a couple billion dollars.

Not true, and the stations are built for 90m trains, how much shorter do you think they could be?

 

[ARG1]

Not true, and the stations are built for 90m trains, how much shorter do you think they could be?

An 80m train running every 3 minutes has the same capacity as a 40m train running every 90s.

This is why the Canada Line has the same ultimate capacity as the Eglinton Crosstown.

 

[whatever]

That would be true if the trains were all pre-loaded and just running through a tunnel. Halving the headways will add dwell time, which in turn reduces the operational speed of the line and in turn its capacity.

Though I don't disagree with your general point, that smaller vehicles more frequently may yield to comparable performance with larger vehicles less frequently. I'm just saying that it's not a directly proportional tradeoff. An engineer could probably actually math it out properly.

 

[ARG1]

That would be true if the trains were all pre-loaded and just running through a tunnel. Halving the headways will add dwell time, which in turn reduces the operational speed of the line and in turn its capacity.

How?

If anything wouldn't halving the headways theoretically reduce dwell times since you're boarding half of the amount of passengers? Ignoring spikes of passenger inflow from sources like transferring busses, say every minute a station gets 60 passengers. A train running every 90s will on average intake 90 passengers, meanwhile a train running every 3 minutes will on average in take 180 passengers. If we assume that the former train is 2x smaller, but still has the same entry/exit throughput, nothing should change in terms of dwell times.

Furthermore, we have to consider other factors as well. Often major outliers that increase dwell times would be things like people trying to catch a train that's about to leave in the last second - holding the doors open. The more frequently that a train arrives, the smaller the chance that happens as people will be more likely to not bother to catch the train, and simply just catch the one that's coming in 90s.

Finally, the point of comparison here is the LFLRVs used on Eglinton, versus High Floor vehicles used on the Canada Line. If you look at any low floor train such as the Alstom Citadis Spirit, you'll notice how irregular the door spacing on the train is. Because they need to squeeze mechanical parts like bogeys into specific parts of the trains, there are significant limitations on where doors can be placed, as well as how many doors per side. Earlier I said "If we assume that the former train is 2x smaller, but still has the same entry/exit throughput, nothing should change in terms of dwell times", however due to the limitations of low floor trains, we can't assume that they have same entry/exit throughput - the larger train in this discussion outright has a far worse throughput, and as such they have significantly worse dwell times than the smaller train.

 

[TRONto]

Ignoring spikes of passenger inflow from sources like transferring busses, say every minute a station gets 60 passengers.

The subway gets most passengers from buses. It will be the same for the Crosstown. I don't think it can be ignored.

 

[ARG1]

The subway gets most passengers from buses. It will be the same for the Crosstown. I don't think it can be ignored.

True, I mostly ignored busses because they are such a massive variable that is difficult to integrate into a napkin model. However I do also think the difference would ultimately be negligible. In both cases, we're transferring a load of passengers from a smaller vehicle to a larger vehicle, the difference is how much larger the vehicle we're transferring to is. In the worst case scenerio, we can have multiple packed busses (say 3 or 4) arrive at the station at the exact same time, and all of the passengers all try and punch their way into a 40m train at the same time. This in turn causes a delay at the station, and results in longer dwell times. What remains in question however is A) How common would this occurrence be? Immediately this is something that will only occur during peak commuting hours, so off peak and weekend travel is unconcerned with this. Also, how many stations on the line will have this problem? If there are several stations which consistently have hordes of people trying to rush a tiny train, well it stands to reason that you probably need more capacity than what you currently are planning for. B) Assuming it is a common and major concern, how much worse is it than consistently having longer dwell times due to low floor trains? Remember we're comparing a train that has a situational point of dwell time increase, vs a vehicle with constant dwell time increases. If you're in a situation where you have such a massive influx of people that your 40m trains can't keep up, you probably need a flat capacity bump straight up.

 

[whatever]

How?

If anything wouldn't halving the headways theoretically reduce dwell times since you're boarding half of the amount of passengers? Ignoring spikes of passenger inflow from sources like transferring busses, say every minute a station gets 60 passengers. A train running every 90s will on average intake 90 passengers, meanwhile a train running every 3 minutes will on average in take 180 passengers. If we assume that the former train is 2x smaller, but still has the same entry/exit throughput, nothing should change in terms of dwell times.

Furthermore, we have to consider other factors as well. Often major outliers that increase dwell times would be things like people trying to catch a train that's about to leave in the last second - holding the doors open. The more frequently that a train arrives, the smaller the chance that happens as people will be more likely to not bother to catch the train, and simply just catch the one that's coming in 90s.

That's twice as many times that you have a vehicle needing to slow down, stop, open doors, close doors, and get back up to speed in order to flow the same number of passengers. What's going to be faster (extreme case), one train that makes one stop and lets ten passengers off, or ten trains that each need to make one stop in order to let one passenger off?

And even using your example of passenger behaviour with the doors closing, the counter scenario is that with twice as many trains pulling out of the stations you're twice as likely to have a passenger trying to catch the train. People are dumb. They'll grab the door on the streetcar when there's another one literally directly behind it.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that a larger number of smaller vehicles may offer advantages in some scenarios, I just don't think it's correct to assume that halving the size and doubling the frequency will necessarily work out to the same thing, in all cases.