News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.2K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

VIA Rail

Allandale25 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1512044722726051844
Click to expand...

I posted this rough diagram on SSP last July, showing how Barnsdale Rd could be detoured to avoid this crossing.

0VzhSUD.png

(The red is a road closure and green is a new road)
 
Bordercollie said:
So clearly the driver had the ability to stop but chose not to. He slowed down because he saw that the gates are down.

Sure you could make it safer but in the end the driver decided their own fate.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the entire report? In the "On-site simulation" section, it concludes that the driver of the truck likely didn't perceive "the activated crossing warnings" until he "approached the crossing stop line" and swerved around them as an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting them. It continues to say, "The driver’s attempt to steer around the lowered crossing gates further suggests that he was likely unaware of how close the train was to the crossing and may have been taking evasive action to avoid a collision."

Even though the report doesn't recommend any changes, I still think the crossing should be closed with a detour as I suggested in my previous post. The detour would eliminate the need for vehicles to cross the tracks (twice) when traveling between Barnsdale Rd and Eagleson to/from the south, while maintaining the same number of crossings for vehicles traveling to/from the northern leg of Eagleson.
 
roger1818 said:
Have you actually read the entire report? In the "On-site simulation" section, it concludes that the driver of the truck likely didn't perceive "the activated crossing warnings" until he "approached the crossing stop line" and swerved around them as an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting them. It continues to say, "The driver’s attempt to steer around the lowered crossing gates further suggests that he was likely unaware of how close the train was to the crossing and may have been taking evasive action to avoid a collision."

Even though the report doesn't recommend any changes, I still think the crossing should be closed with a detour as I suggested in my previous post. The detour would eliminate the need for vehicles to cross the tracks (twice) when traveling between Barnsdale Rd and Eagleson to/from the south, while maintaining the same number of crossings for vehicles traveling to/from the northern leg of Eagleson.
Click to expand...
How could he not see that the crossing arms were down? He was also familiar with the area.

Was he destracted?
 
Bordercollie said:
How could he not see that the crossing arms were down? He was also familiar with the area.

Was he destracted?
Click to expand...

Once again, if you had actually read the report, you would have read:
During the simulation, the TSB noted that, once the crossing gates were fully down, they blended into the background, and that the bright daylight conditions diminished the conspicuity of the gate lights. Consequently, the crossing gates and gate lights were not conspicuous from a distance, nor were they designed to be.
Click to expand...
and later on:
Drivers periodically shift their focus to look further ahead or closer to their vehicle depending on several factors such as the presence of upcoming intersections, traffic density, time of day, weather, their own vehicle speed, and road geometry. Drivers continually perform visual scans to the left and to the right to monitor the outside environment, particularly the road signs. Up to 90% of drivers’ visual attention is spent looking at elements directly ahead in their view, given that these are objects with which they are most likely to interact.

While travelling west along Barnsdale Road toward the Eagleson Road intersection, drivers must shift their focus from the road ahead to the “Railway crossing ahead” sign and pavement markings (railway advance warning sign and “X” painted on the asphalt). The purpose of these warning signs is to attract drivers’ visual attention toward the upcoming crossing so that they are more ready to respond to an active signal. If drivers are unable to see an approaching train or hear its horn, safety at the crossing relies solely on the conspicuity of the crossing signals.

Expectancies relate to a driver’s readiness to respond to situations, and influence how quickly information is perceived and an appropriate course of action is selected. If a westbound driver on Barnsdale Road were not expecting a train, the driver’s visual and cognitive attention would likely be focused on the “Stop ahead” sign and the intersection with Eagleson Road beyond the crossing. This focus away from the crossing would tend to increase driver reaction time to crossing warnings of an approaching train. The driver’s delayed reaction in this occurrence was consistent with such an expectation.
Click to expand...
and earlier in the report:
When a driver becomes familiar with a particular level crossing or with a particular type of level crossing, and where the driver has never, or seldom, encountered an approaching train at the level crossing, the driver will tend to not expect to encounter a train. Since the driver in this occurrence was familiar with the crossing and had likely seldom encountered any trains there, he would likely have formed the expectation that there would not be a train at the crossing.

When drivers receive information contrary to their expectations, their performance tends to be slow or inappropriate.
Click to expand...
 
Bordercollie said:
So they should look at having additional lights farther from the crossing to give drivers more notice, and give them a chance to slow down.
Click to expand...

Or better yet, close the crossing as I previously suggested. The fewer cars crossing the tracks, the less likely for there to be a collision. Level crossings are a safety compromise.
 
Allandale25 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1511458187941228549
Click to expand...
Lots of focus?? Focus since 1991 with everything from TGV to JetTrain to the current plan which is little more than regular trains on tracks where the train isn't forced to pull into a siding to let freight pass. Let's quickly expand the scope of 30 years of relative inaction to look at other corridors so they too can share in the disillusionment of the paper based exercise.
 
EnviroTO said:
Lots of focus?? Focus since 1991 with everything from TGV to JetTrain to the current plan which is little more than regular trains on tracks where the train isn't forced to pull into a siding to let freight pass. Let's quickly expand the scope of 30 years of relative inaction to look at other corridors so they too can share in the disillusionment of the paper based exercise.
Click to expand...
Just to underline how ludicrous the use of the word "viable" is when this Mathew-guy assesses the ridership potential of these "corridors":
1649725137793.png


Basically, TRTO-OTTW-MTRL has approximately 10 times the ridership potential of Calgary-Edmonton and 100 (!) times the other four corridors our friend Mathew has identified...
 
Urban Sky said:
Just to underline how ludicrous the use of the word "viable" is when this Mathew-guy assesses the ridership potential of these "corridors":
View attachment 392090

Basically, TRTO-OTTW-MTRL has approximately 10 times the ridership potential of Calgary-Edmonton and 100 (!) times the other four corridors our friend Mathew has identified...
Click to expand...
As someone from the Okanagan, I can unfortunately confirm the absurdity of the idea of a viable passenger rail corridor between Kelowna and Kamloops.
 
EnviroTO said:
Lots of focus?? Focus since 1991 with everything from TGV to JetTrain to the current plan which is little more than regular trains on tracks where the train isn't forced to pull into a siding to let freight pass. Let's quickly expand the scope of 30 years of relative inaction to look at other corridors so they too can share in the disillusionment of the paper based exercise.
Click to expand...

In many ways, rail fans can be VIA's worst enemy. :rolleyes:
 
Urban Sky said:
Just to underline how ludicrous the use of the word "viable" is when this Mathew-guy assesses the ridership potential of these "corridors":
View attachment 392090

Basically, TRTO-OTTW-MTRL has approximately 10 times the ridership potential of Calgary-Edmonton and 100 (!) times the other four corridors our friend Mathew has identified...
Click to expand...
I would say that there's good chance that *Matthew reads this thread...
I also don't think it's by any means a stretch to contemplate Calgary-Edmonton service.
Lastly, let's not forget who's working at VIA, and how bad the current service is. Perhaps reflect on that.
 
It isn’t like Calgary-Edmonton is a stretch. It was the other corridor examined in the mid 80s by VIA in its HSR study.

There problem there is the initial investment to get a minimally viable service, and that it is so high there is no viable no billions in infrastructure before service option. (or at least not one that is competitive with the bus).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top