News   Nov 22, 2024
 584     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 2.8K     8 

TTC: Flexity Streetcars Testing & Delivery (Bombardier)

It's a baby step. The TTC should have been more ambitious and removed about 1/3 of the stops on the downtown streetcars. Especially on those with a ROW to show how fast it can be. On Spadina they should remove most if not all the mid-block stops like Sussex, Augusta, etc. it would make the trip faster. The length of the new tram and all door loading reduces the walk anyway.

In fact, the TTC should convert Spadina, Queens Quay and St, Clair into LRT routes with wider spacing and faster travel time. It would be really cheap to do and would demonstrate that trams are a great alternative form of rapid transit that is much cheaper than a subway.

For routes like Spadina & St Clair, removing stops may not result in as much of a speed improvement as you expect, if delay due to traffic signals still slows it down.

All I'm saying is that delay due to traffic signals is another factor affecting speed in addition to stop spacing.
 
It's a baby step. The TTC should have been more ambitious and removed about 1/3 of the stops on the downtown streetcars. Especially on those with a ROW to show how fast it can be. On Spadina they should remove most if not all the mid-block stops like Sussex, Augusta, etc. it would make the trip faster. The length of the new tram and all door loading reduces the walk anyway.

In fact, the TTC should convert Spadina, Queens Quay and St, Clair into LRT routes with wider spacing and faster travel time. It would be really cheap to do and would demonstrate that trams are a great alternative form of rapid transit that is much cheaper than a subway.

totally agree.
If you look at the comments they are overwhelmingly supportive of removal. I think everyone is frustrated by the extra slow moving streetcars (and buses).
The ideal spacing is putting one stop between university and spadina. (@beverly or John).
 
For routes like Spadina & St Clair, removing stops may not result in as much of a speed improvement as you expect, if delay due to traffic signals still slows it down.

All I'm saying is that delay due to traffic signals is another factor affecting speed in addition to stop spacing.

tl;dr: Frequent stops are the reason transit vehicles get so many red lights in the first place.


Yes, traffic signals can stop vehicles. However, this does not occur randomly, because traffic signals are co-ordinated with each other. If you travel like a car (i.e. don't make stops other than at traffic lights), you have the highest probability of getting a green light at a given intersection because our signal offsets are designed to minimize delay for cars.

So as far as calculating time savings from removing stops, the improvement in travel time should actually be greater than the time directly spent on the stop. But I admit this effect is probably minimal given that the signals downtown cannot be effectively co-ordinated in all directions.

To partially counteract this bias towards cars, many of our signals have "transit priority", which extends the green light by up to 30 seconds (varies by intersection) when a transit vehicle is detected ahead of the intersection. However, Spadina's system is not active, and St. Clair has a good number out of order at the moment.

Transit stops make it harder to design effective transit priority by introducing uncertainty. At a given streetcar stop, the dwell time could be anywhere from 0 seconds (no stop) to over a minute. Given that the entire signal cycle is typically 60 - 80 seconds, this is very significant.

In general, the further away a transit vehicle can be detected ahead of an intersection, the more effective the transit priority can be. But vehicles should only be detected as far away as the previous stop. There's no point in detecting further than that (though we constantly do in Toronto), because there is so much variation that there is no way of knowing what action would actually help the vehicle. This results in the "priority" system actually delaying transit vehicles if they don't make it through on its extended green. With a near-side stop, the maximum effective detection distance is pretty much zero. With far-side stops, the maximum detection is the previous stop, usually after the previous intersection. And with no stops, vehicles could actually be detected more than one intersection away if the signal system is smart enough to anticipate the other signals.

Reducing the frequency of transit stops also increases the effectiveness of transit priority systems by reducing the variation in dwell time at each stop. This helps to negate some of the variability issues described above. With stops on every corner, many will result in no delay at all while others will have some delay (which is a great deal more than none). With infrequent stops, vehicles typically stop at every stop, and the passenger loads will tend to be more consistent due to averaging out different demand sources. That's why the subway's Next Train arrival estimate is generally pretty accurate despite having no data source other than the position of the train.
 
Last edited:
Yes, traffic signals can stop vehicles. However, this does not occur randomly, because traffic signals are co-ordinated with each other. If you travel like a car (i.e. don't make stops other than at traffic lights), you have the highest probability of getting a green light at a given intersection because our signal offsets are designed to minimize delay for cars.

That is correct in some cases in Toronto - but only downtown, and only during rush hours. At other times, and everywhere else in the City, the lights are not coordinated.

The coordination is set to give priority to east-west streets, and University Ave.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
That is correct in some cases in Toronto - but only downtown, and only during rush hours. At other times, and everywhere else in the City, the lights are not coordinated.
It used to be a lot more than downtown. Offhand, I'd noticed in the past that Sheppard, Don Mills, and Eglinton were all co-ordinated. And I think Kingston Road still is - and not just in rush hour.
 
It used to be a lot more than downtown. Offhand, I'd noticed in the past that Sheppard, Don Mills, and Eglinton were all co-ordinated. And I think Kingston Road still is - and not just in rush hour.
More info on traffic lights at http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/36/101000039636.html

Also this:

The Traffic Operations Office will review the request and undertake the necessary analysis and field studies. Traffic Operations will request the Traffic Management Centre to implement signal timing adjustments, if adjustments are required.

The traffic signals on City arterial roadways are generally synchronized or coordinated to minimize stops and delays on the arterial roadways. In other words, the City tries to provide a smooth movement of the traffic through groups of signals on an arterial street. The degree or quality of traffic signal co-ordination is influenced by a number of factors including such things as the spacing of the signals along the street, the prevailing speed of traffic on the street, and the traffic signal cycle length. The City of Toronto Official Plan encourages transit use and transit signal priority can disrupt progression in opposing directions.
 
Off-topic but does anyone know if the new Flexities have the same "slippage" issue with a full load on Bathurst Street Bloor --> St.Clair?

If not, would the TTC ever consider putting full streetcar service on this area?
 
That is correct in some cases in Toronto - but only downtown, and only during rush hours. At other times, and everywhere else in the City, the lights are not coordinated.

The coordination is set to give priority to east-west streets, and University Ave.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Most of the lights are coordinated via computers. However, if the intersection has four directions, only one direction would be coordinated. Which means 3 out of the 4 are not.
 
blogTO ‏@blogTO 1m

A rare double streetcar spotting in our photo of the day.
Bxmi0KlIgAAZXih.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Bxmi0KlIgAAZXih.jpg
    Bxmi0KlIgAAZXih.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 1,190
That is correct in some cases in Toronto - but only downtown, and only during rush hours. At other times, and everywhere else in the City, the lights are not coordinated.

This is actually almost backward.

Almost all traffic signals are coordinated during the day (7 AM to 10 PM at least), in the sense that they operate with a controlled relationship with other nearby signals in a group. Our most advanced signal system, SCOOT, actually updates the relationship between the intersections on the fly using real-time volume information. This system is not surprisingly more effective at keeping cars moving than non-adaptive systems, especially since signals are sometimes added or modified without manually recoordinating the entire stretch of street. Streets with SCOOT include Don Mills, Yonge Street near the 401, Black Creek Drive, and Lakeshore Blvd. The signal system for every traffic signal in the city is available here: https://www.mirasan.ca/.

The non-adaptive systems are called "MTSS" and "TransSuite". We are currently transitioning from the former to the latter, which is more flexible. These systems typically use three timings (called "plans") during the day: AM Peak, Midday and PM Peak. Each plan may have a different offset from other signals as directions of travel are prioritized throughout the day.

The exception to co-ordination is any signal which uses transit priority (i.e. many signals downtown). These signals fall out of co-ordination when the extended green lights extend signal cycle beyond its normal value. They typically take about 3 cycles to re-sync, by which time another vehicle may have shown up and requested priority, restarting the situation.

Most of the lights are coordinated via computers. However, if the intersection has four directions, only one direction would be coordinated. Which means 3 out of the 4 are not.

This is all correct. The traffic operations centre in Flemingdon Park is the "brain" of the entire city's traffic signals, as long as the communications are working. When communications are lost, signals operate on the built-in controller and can fall out-of-sync with other signals.

It is very important to underline that in Toronto it is not possible to co-ordinate in more than one direction at a time, so most signals will not seem co-ordinated to the average driver. And in some cases, the chosen offsets are a compromise in delay between the directions, which gives the impression that there is no co-ordination.

All of this media attention about co-ordination is about nothing other than cars. Good co-ordination from the point of drivers really screws up transit in the absence of transit priority.

Sorry about derailing the thread. To get slightly more on-topic, I hope that the higher capacity of the new streetcars encourages traffic engineers to more aggressively prioritize transit at signals, given that doing is now more likely to reduce person-delay at the intersection.
 
Last edited:
What messes up the coordination are illegally parked vehicles, slow walking pedestrians or jaywalkers, red light runners, intersection blockers (not clearing intersections), accidents, road construction, speeders, slowpokes, lane blockers, etc..
 
What messes up the coordination are illegally parked vehicles, slow walking pedestrians or jaywalkers, red light runners, intersection blockers (not clearing intersections), accidents, road construction, speeders, slowpokes, lane blockers, etc..

So pretty much almost everyone then.
 

Back
Top