Videos of Light Rail RAPID Transit

[kEiThZ]

+1

If they were planning LRT like what Ottawa is on track to build, I don't think SOS would exist and/or that many of us who oppose TC would have too many legitimate grievances (beyond the transfer issue). But when I look at what's coming on Sheppard, I fail to see how it's closer to a C-Train than to St. Clair West. And I also fail to see how much of the same benefits could not have been pulled far more cheaply using curbside bus lanes.

As much as I am no fan of the SRT, I have to admit that the replacement being planned is LRT at its finest. The same can't be said of the SELRT.

 

[gweed123]

+1

If they were planning LRT like what Ottawa is on track to build, I don't think SOS would exist and/or that many of us who oppose TC would have too many legitimate grievances (beyond the transfer issue). But when I look at what's coming on Sheppard, I fail to see how it's closer to a C-Train than to St. Clair West. And I also fail to see how much of the same benefits could not have been pulled far more cheaply using curbside bus lanes.

As much as I am no fan of the SRT, I have to admit that the replacement being planned is LRT at its finest. The same can't be said of the SELRT.

The reason the SLRT is good LRT is because the entire thing was originally planned as an ICTS Mark II upgrade. When the Pro-LRT movement came to Toronto and that project was encorporated into Transit City, they merely slapped an LRT sticker onto it. It's nearly the exact same plan as the original SRT extension/refurb plan, which was going to use ICTS Mark II, just now they're using LRT vehicles instead.

 

[reaperexpress]

Debating over the definition of LRT doesn't change the fact that nearly every single one of those videos shows a more 'extensive' (for lack of a better word) form of LRT than what is being proposed in Transit City. No grade separation (aside from less than 1/3 of Eglinton), no separate dedicated surface ROW, and likely a very poorly implemented signal priority system.

By "poorly implemented signal priority" I assume you mean NO signal priority. The roads department has shown absolutely no evidence that it ever intends to turn on a transit priority system. All the "LRTs" in Toronto have transit priority signals but they are not operating with transit priority. If they ever want to convince us that Transit City will be fast, they have had plenty of opportunity to prove it to us. For example:

- implement complete LA-style transit priority at the Queensway and Colborne Lodge Dr. This would have no effect on traffic, but would increase in transit speed and reliability.

- fix the transit priority on the 509. There seems to be some kind of strange system on the 509 where streetcars have to wait for all traffic to stop before crossing the intersection. Putting in regular transit priority would increase speed for everyone.

- selectively turn on the transit priority on St. Clair and Spadina. We could make a compromise with the roads department by turning on transit priority for vehicles that are running behind schedule. This would make the route much more reliable and would allow for a tightening of the schedule, resulting in an improvement in speed. It would also have less effect on traffic and therefore would be more likely to be approved by the roads department. And besides there's no point in holding up traffic for a vehicle that's ahead of schedule.

I'm not against LRT as it is implemented in the majority of those videos. It works well. Why? Because they have grade-separation in parts, they have separate dedicated ROWs in parts, and they have true signal priority. There's a spectrum that LRT covers, from slightly above streetcar, to slightly below HRT subway. The combination of those factors that I just mentioned determines where on that spectrum the particular LRT line is. Transit City is much more towards the streetcar end. Ottawa's new proposed LRT system (which I am strongly in favour of btw, and of which I was very strongly opposed to the first draft that had it running at-grade through downtown), is much more towards the subway end of the spectrum. Through downtown, and even outside of downtown, it's running in it's own grade-separated ROW. The only real difference between it and an HRT line is the platform length and the passenger capacity.

Actually the Scarborough LRT will be even more metro-like than any of the mentioned systems on this thread. It is 100% grade separated, and includes a tunnel under an unused rail corridor.

 

[gweed123]

By "poorly implemented signal priority" I assume you mean NO signal priority.

Pretty much, yeah. Or if it is implemented, it'll be half-assed, and will end up making both transit AND traffic flow even worse. If they can't implement it properly on existing routes, it doesn't give me much hope that they'll implement it properly on future routes.

Actually the Scarborough LRT will be even more metro-like than any of the mentioned systems on this thread. It is 100% grade separated, and includes a tunnel under an unused rail corridor.

Because it was originally planned as ICTS. The planning for the SRT is drastically different from the planning on every other TC line. Why? Because it wasn't planned as part of TC. It was planned before TC, and was merely slapped with an LRT label when TC was being formulated to make it fit. If the TTC has planned all of TC like they did the SRT refurb and extension, I would have far fewer problems with the plan as a whole.