[eglinton1661]

Live updates:
- The earliest Line 6 improvements can be implemented is at the end of the "soft opening" in "early spring"

- TTC staff would need to consult with Mosaic and Metrolinx if it were to speed up the LRT because it would impact maintenance costs

- In response to question from Councillor Matlow, TTC insists that Line 6 did have TSP from day one that would extend the green light and truncate the reds. No specificity on whether this is conditional or unconditional. Says what they're looking into now is a "more aggressive" form of TSP

- Councillor Bravo asks whether giving priority to Line 6 would mean that other lines like the Jane bus would be delayed. TTC staff say yes, but that nature of transit signal prioritization is that some prioritization must happen

- TTC staff says original stated runtime for Line 6 and Line 5 are "lower than what would be possible to do." "That was developed by Metrolinx in consultation with TTC and the city... as part of the original contract." Became evident last year "or possibly earlier than that" that those run times would not be possible.

- Myers asks if there was ever a discussion about updating the public about the new run times. TTC staff says no because "this was a contractual issue and they wanted to have that discussion internally"

Want to expand on this because I think the transcript is worth seeing in full:

Saxe: why do we need to talk to Metrolinx or Mosaic about TSP? Isn't that something the city controls?

TTC staff: the city does control TSP.

Saxe: so why do we have to work with Metrolinx? why not just ask the city to do it?

TTC staff: the train operating services agreement says any changes contemplated on the LRTs require the input from metrolinx and mosaic

Saxes: including TSP? The city owns the signal.

TTC staff: but the impact of the change in the signal may impact the runtime which will cause an impact to the operations, maintenance on the various vehicles. It's not just a simple TSP, it then causes a knock on effect that needs to be reviewed by mosaic and metrolinx

Saxe: is mosaic and metrolinx in favor of making this line as fast as they said it was going to be?

TTC staff: metrolinx and mosaic have worked with city to define the service level for the train. once the train reaches a steady state there are opportunities to change it with an amendment to the contract.

Saxe: right but if people get used to the LRT being a slow dragging disappointing getting better later isn't going to reverse that reputational damage. how quickly can the city and mosaic get this line running at a speed comparable to what was advertised?

TTC staff: the change in speed is a result of the discussions that have occurred with the TTC and metrolinx to ensure there's a proper and safe operation of the vehicles. In terms of the timing to do this, what has to happen is there has to be a determination made as to what's the best speed, and what needs to happen is there needs to be a thorough review done by mosaic as the operator of the system and the TTC as the operator of the vehicles as to what speed makes sense, and then that will initiate the variation. This is not going to be a simple change to increase the speed, it doesn't work that way, it's very complicated in terms of making sure the runtime and the headways of these vehicles still meet the requirements of the contract.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I think the TSP should be done in February

 

[drum118]

I think it maybe time to do Pedestrian Scramble/Scrambled Crossing intersections where pedestrians are not allow to cross the intersection on a green for traffic, but only for them. I have seen them else where and it allows for a better flow for everyone as well more safer for pedestrians. Toronto has a few Scramble intersections, but allow pedestrians to cross in one direction of the intersection blocking traffic/transit to turn in front of them.

Regardless what may take place, you will find people having no respect to obey the rules as they only think of themselves just like a lot of drivers do.

There is always the round the block move to turn left by doing a right-right-right turn that will not work for every place, but will improve quality transit improvement.

A good priority traffic signal would allow a transit vehicle to move first, then change to allow traffic to turn with transit going back to green. At the same time, the transit green can be held longer if the stop is on the far side if that transit vehicle hits the hold section before it is to turn.

Finch is no different than Eglinton time wise getting a red 10 sections before cars do. I do find that some intersections should not be there that will require traffic to do U-turn to get back to x street as a right in and out. This will speed up quality of service.

As for buses/BRT in place of an LRT based on today ridership is false thinking as you need to be looking 30-50 years down the road. From what I see for redevelopment along the route, the fleet will have to be double with close headways. This may come an issue for Eglinton after going to 3 cars sets and how do you add space for a 4th car?? Finch has the same issue adding a 2nd car once service gets down to 90 seconds.

 

[urbanclient]

I think this is relevant here. Someone posted on Reddit about the Line 9 tramline in the Paris area. It is exactly the same length at 10.3km. Has 19 stops. and can do the end to end trip in 32min. (scheduled at 30min)

Look in this video at how aggressively they drive the trams. There seem to be many more pedestrian and car crossings than on Finch West. Most lights switch off before the tram arrives.

Am I tripping or does this prove that signal priority and low dwell times are key. Aggressive acceleration and deceleration help too, especially to get up to higher top and average moving speeds. My earlier hypotheticals of 20 second door open chime to vehicle moving dwell times (22 sec stop and go dwell time) were beaten at 6:12 to 6:32. The tram comes to a complete stop and leaves in exactly 20 seconds, which is 2 seconds faster than 22. Where are the people at, saying 20 second dwell times/door open times were two short for trams? *cough* @innsertnamehere

The fact that if you [...] make dwell times ridiculously minimal (ignoring how trams have smaller doors than Line 1 and simply take longer to unload/load passengers) and still get a 34 minute travel time is indicative of a problem. With the tram barely stopping at stops and never stopping at red lights your hypothetical scenario still delivers a travel time over 50% longer than driving with stoplights and an average speed below 25km/h.

And as an FYI, those types of travel time savings are simply not realistic. Dwell times and red light time can definitely be reduced, but you aren't going to save 18 minutes off those. Even a very strong transit priority signaling system is still going to have some level of dwell time for vehicles as lights have minimum cycle lengths that have to be met. Similarly, not every stop is going to be able to get it's doors closed in 20 seconds. Maybe the quieter ones with minimal passengers, but stations like Kipling and Jane are just going to take longer.

*Emphasis mine

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

I think this is relevant here. Someone posted on Reddit about the Line 9 tramline in the Paris area. It is exactly the same length at 10.3km. Has 19 stops. and can do the end to end trip in 32min. (scheduled at 30min)

Look in this video at how aggressively they drive the trams. There seem to be many more pedestrian and car crossings than on Finch West. Most lights switch off before the tram arrives.

Note the lack of verbal signage in the video. No signs in French (nor English, nor German, nor Italian, etc.) that say "TRAM SIGNAL". Just white bars for the tram.

 

[crs1026]

TTC: through the chair. It is actually, it is actually relatively new, I believe this sort of aggressive TSP has been used in other places Europe, but I'm not as familiar with it being used elsewhere in North America, we would be, again, a bit of a pioneer, I think, in North America.

Myers: So it's new to North America, but it's not new to Europe, correct?

TTC: Correct. Or Asia, yeah.

Funny how a quick google search reveals all the places in North America where it is already used.

Portland, Denver, Boston for instance.

Having seen it working in Portland a decade ago - well, they have it pretty much figured out.

Is this "playing dumb" ? Does TTC really not know?

- Paul

 

[Steve X]

Where in North America uses the aggressive form of transit signal priority being discussed and proposed?

I'm not carrying water for them. I'm in favour of people accurately understanding what was and wasn't said, but you seem to have a problem with that because you don't view them favourably...?

You can look up Houston and watch how efficient their system ran for 2 decades.

I do have to say left turning traffic does complicate things. It would be better if the tracks are on its own corridor like ION than in the middle of a major roadway.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Am I tripping or does this prove that signal priority and low dwell times are key. Aggressive acceleration and deceleration help too, especially to get up to higher top and average moving speeds. My earlier hypotheticals of 20 second door open chime to vehicle moving dwell times (22 sec stop and go dwell time) were beaten at 6:12 to 6:32. The tram comes to a complete stop and leaves in exactly 20 seconds, which is 2 seconds faster than 22. Where are the people at, saying 20 second dwell times/door open times were two short for trams? *cough* @innsertnamehere

*Emphasis mine

Yes, and as I said not everything is going to be 20 second dwells. Quiet stations can likely hit that as you show in your video, but riding the LRT on Sunday many stops had large volumes of passengers exiting and entering and with high volumes comes increased dwells, especially given the smaller doors on the LRVS. Off-peak operations could probably do 20 second dwells pretty consistently.

Getting this up to good speeds is going to be a wide mix of measures, TSP, reduced dwells, more aggressive operations, higher top speeds, the mix.

 

[ZEBuilder]

You can look up Houston and watch how efficient their system ran for 2 decades.

I do have to say left turning traffic does complicate things. It would be better if the tracks are on its own corridor like ION than in the middle of a major roadway.

Large stretches of the ION (7.5km roughly) run side running or center running, so it has to deal with not only left turn but also a fair amount of right turn traffic constantly. Even then it doesn't even complicate it that much, yes there's crashes but it's close to one a month if that.

 

[Coolibop]

Saxe: so why do we have to work with Metrolinx? why not just ask the city to do it?

TTC staff: the train operating services agreement says any changes contemplated on the LRTs require the input from metrolinx and mosaic
...
TTC staff: but the impact of the change in the signal may impact the runtime which will cause an impact to the operations, maintenance on the various vehicles. It's not just a simple TSP, it then causes a knock on effect that needs to be reviewed by mosaic and metrolinx

I appreciate Clr Saxe asking this...but wished it went further:

Didn’t Metrolinx and Mosaic already stress-test the vehicles and approve them at specific maximum speeds? Shouldn’t that be the benchmark for how fast the trams are operated? I understand that running trains faster or slower affects operations and maintenance requirements, but the current super-slow operating speeds are puzzling. It feels like the service is being deliberately constrained (perhaps to reduce long-term maintenance costs under the 30 year contract?) at the expense of rider experience. The need to consult multiple parties for every minor adjustment is bogging things down and highlights a major downside of the contractual setup.

I worry these contracts may end up constraining the delivery of good or even great service. Transit should be operated for the benefit of riders, not to help a third party save money on maintenance. That may well be a flaw in this contractual arrangement, as others here have already warned many pages ago...

I’m glad to see the pressure everyone is applying, but it’s frustrating that after years of delay, supposedly to exercise caution and “learn from past mistakes”, we still can’t get things right.

 

[urbanclient]

Yes, and as I said not everything is going to be 20 second dwells. Quiet stations can likely hit that as you show in your video, but riding the LRT on Sunday many stops had large volumes of passengers exiting and entering and with high volumes comes increased dwells, especially given the smaller doors on the LRVS. Off-peak operations could probably do 20 second dwells pretty consistently.

Getting this up to good speeds is going to be a wide mix of measures, TSP, reduced dwells, more aggressive operations, higher top speeds, the mix.

I want to clarify, I think your earlier comment was reasonable and a valuable contribution. I want to point out though, on the odd chance you didn't see my edit, that my original hypothetical case did not fully account for time lost due to deceleration and coasting in advance of a red light, which is likely to be ~2.5 minutes at least if my napkin math is right. If you wanna increase dwell times by 10 from 20 up to 30 seconds, then you only increase total travel time by 160 seconds or 2 minutes 40 seconds. If Line 6 is stopping 31 times including 15 red lights instead of just the 16 intermediate stops, then (correct me if I am wrong) you would be roughly halving the amount of time spent at cruising speed.

You would be fair to point out that excess coasting/decel and slow acceleration out of scheduled stops would be a significant factor that I did not mention. And I do agree, even under ideal circumstances of signal priority and dwell time, 34 minutes is slower than driving. Hence, I agree that ideally, the whole "wide mix of measures" including faster top speeds would be implemented to reach IDF*Paris T9 trip times.

 

[ssiguy2]

Saw the media video and it looks very promising especially because they want these TSP on Eglinton before it opens and very importantly will also apply to streetcars to get them moving especially the lines with their own lanes ie St. Clair and Spadina.

I noticed he said he has been talking with the City & province with the latter being the most significant. I bet his "talking" with Ford was none of the sort but rather a blistering attack by QP being furious about spending this kind of money for a horrible service and Ford missing all the political brownie points that are usually associated with ribbon cuttings.

As much as the TTC has it's share of blame, he is right in that ultimately this is the City's fault. They can have all the TSP and other measures available but if they aren't allowed to implement them then it's all for not. It was never a technology problem but a political one.

So, it looks like this lemon might be turning into lemonade as it has finally forced the City and councilors to put aside their political ambitions and put the travelling public first and foremost as they rightfully deserve to be.

 

[hw621]

Actually on the line right now. God isn't it painful?! Frequent stops, crawling...What a joke

 

[lastcommodore]

Look in this video at how aggressively they drive the trams.

Interestingly, other than the much stronger TSP, the trams arent actually going that fast. The max speed here seems to be 40/45kmh, (which I feel like for a median tram should be higher but regardless) the tram driver accelerates and decelerates so aggressively that it's so frequently at max speed. Every single video I have seen of the 6 trams (Though I have not personally been in one) makes the GO trains look like they have a heavy foot.

 

[Cobra]

This is hopeful like I wrote in the streetcar thread. Part of the motion is to have vehicles go faster than the road speed limit - which is a no brainer