nfitz
Superstar
Fair enough, some stops should be eliminated, and it should be speeded up.
But even the slowest segment is faster than 20 km/hr.
|
|
|
Transit City Plan
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
But even the slowest segment is faster than 20 km/hr.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't understand the mindset behind such comments. If BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) that stops at traffic lights is rapid transit, then LRT that does exactly the same thing, at the same speeds is rapid transit.
I would qualify it as rapid transit. I would just qualify it as the lower end of rapid transit. These types of lines are fine for secondary corridors that serve the function of being efficient and relatively local feeder routes to the primary, high-capacity, grade-separated, high-speed network. St. Clair West does a great job at this. It's an efficient, relatively high frequency, relatively reliable, medium capacity feeder line for the YUS subway.
Dan416
Senior Member
I don't think many people actually consider something like VIVA to be true BRT anyway. BRT-lite at best.
Calling SELRT "rapid transit" is akin to calling St. Clair or Spadina "rapit transit". Hint: they're not. I made the mistake of taking the Spadina streetcar to Unon a couple times. In terms of speed, Spadina is a #fail
nfitz
Superstar
SELRT will be about twice as fast as Spadina. It's not comparable. And it will be significantly faster than St. Clair.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Who am I to even argue with someone who has taken the Spadina streetcar "a couple times."
The speeds may not be that comparable, but the ROW design is pretty damn similar...
You're basically saying that at urban expressway isn't comparable to a rural expressway because the urban expressway has exits closer together.
golodhendil
Active Member
Except, of course, cars on expressways don't stop at exits.
Is an expressway, or a suburban arterial with traffic lights every 500 m, "comparable" to a downtown street with lights every 100 m?
Is an expressway, or a suburban arterial with traffic lights every 500 m, "comparable" to a downtown street with lights every 100 m?
Actually, they are. Lanes on each of those types of streets have the same theoretical capacity.
And it was an analogy, it doesn't have to be perfectly accurate. I was simply trying to say that just because one route has wider stop spacing than another route, despite having the same basic configuration, it does not make them uncomparable.
LowerBay
Active Member
Good point.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
But the catch is you'd be on the SELRT longer then you would be on St. Clair or Spadina since you'd have much further to go to be fed into a Subway line.
Dan416
Senior Member
Anyone know when the new transit plan is being released?
golodhendil
Active Member
But the world operates in less than ideal conditions such that theoretical capacities can rarely ever (never) be attained. A lane of road (or a line of rail) that has less chances for stopping will obviously allow the vehicles to travel at a higher average speed and thus attain closer to the theoretical maximum capacity. An expressway and a downtown street is "comparable" in the same way that an at-grade light rail can have nearly the same capacity as a fully grade-separated subway in ideal conditions (with similar per-train capacity and headway, which aren't that difficult; not having to stop at any red lights either due to transit priority signalling or luck; and stopping briefly or not at all at stations). Obviously that's not going to happen, or else we wouldn't need this whole debate. Both are meaningless comparisons.
There are imperfect analogies. Then there are bad analogies.
Last edited:
sober2ndthought
New Member
BRT isn't true rapid transit either.
Calgary's CTrain (LRT) is true rapid transit. At every intersection outside the downtown core, the LRT is treated like a railway. It is given right of way through railroad style crossings, while at busy intersections the LRT is grade separated. Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYyhoO0_llc
Eglinton and to a lesser degree Sheppard could support this type of system. This is how I imagine LRT on those routes:
On Sheppard, the subway cars would be replaced with High Floor LRVs, such as Calgary's Siemens SD160. The LRT would then proceed at-grade along the side of Sheppard (lower cost than the median). The at-grade section will use high floor trains for seamless travel across Sheppard. The at-grade stations will have platforms for wheelchair access. Minor intersections would be eliminated, and major intersection will either use railroad style crossings or have grade separation. The line would terminate at Scarbrough Town Centre and Downsview Station.
The mistake was made by building the Sheppard Subway in the first place, but Toronto should not make another mistake by creating a disjointed transit network.
On Eglinton, the line would be identical as to what it is now, but minor intersections would be eliminated. At major intersections their will be railroad style crossings or grade separation, depending on the size of the intersection.
Finally for both, the ROW would be dedicated to only LRT. So no emergency vehicle or bus would be allowed to operate on the ROW. The tracks would not be encased as to discourage people from driving on the ROW and also to increase the speed of the train. The LRVs will run at a speeds of 80 km/h between stations. Finally, increase the stop spacing to 1 stop per 1 KM to 1.5 KMs.
But sadly, I don't think this kind of LRT is politically feasible in Toronto.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
That's a lot of extra money spent just because you're concerned they won't have good a signal priority system, isn't it?