[mikey7767]

Perhaps though, you can stop repeating this?

If I'm responding to someone and that point is the response, then no, I will not stop repeating this point.

And you seem to be grasping for straws here. "It's not always slower than buses, sometimes it's a tad bit faster, that makes the Billions squandered totally worth it". And I've taken the FWLRT six times this month, four times in rush hour, not once has it been below 50 minutes, which is close to your bus time in rush hour. Not much better.

 

[nfitz]

If I'm responding to someone and that point is the response, then no, I will not stop repeating this point.

You are into trolling territory. Please stop.

 

[Burnt creek]

You are into trolling territory. Please stop.

You cant call someone a troll just because you don't like what they say. What ever happened to democracy.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I still think LRT lines in toronto can work. The biggest problem with the line is how it was designed, which can be changed in the future.

1. Stations should be minimum 650-700 meters apart. That is a 10 minute walk between stations, which is reasonable.

2. Stations at major intersections should be built separate-grade. It can be built above ground preferably or underground. This would allow frequent service without impacting traffic.

3. For minor intersections with surface stations the LRT should always be given priority through aggressive TSP. With minor intersections there is less perpendicular traffic so it should be easier to implement.
4. For separate-grade Stations at major intersection LRT required to stop, but for surface stations at minor intersections a request stop model should be implemented. From my experience riding the LRT, outside of rush hour, stations located on smaller intersection are lightly used.

5.When LRT needs to complete turn, it should be designed with gentle curves so vehicle's can maintain speed. I understand LRT are designed to take sharp turns, but it should not come at the cost of speed.

With all these changes LRT would resemble more a light metro line.

Some problems with these ideas. Transit planning has to take into account the reality on the ground. How far apart are the major arterials? Half a mile on one city of the city, 5/8 on another. How many riders live in between, how many of those on perpendicular side roads, and how far from stops? How many do you lose if they are too far from stops. Remember, when they took out the minor stops in Etobicoke to speed up the journey, ridership estimates significantly decreased.

I've heard the duck under major intersections idea many times. If your stations are far apart, there are only stations at major intersections. So essentially you are building a line with subway stations and at-grade running, a roller coaster that maximizes costs by quintupling the cost of the stations and then energy and maintenance costs by having trains slam on the brakes to stop and stations at the bottom of a ramp, then straining the motors to climb a hill after stops. Going over major intersections is more logical, but not pretty. So eventually Why not just build a subway is the result.

 

[mikey7767]

You cant call someone a troll just because you don't like what they say. What ever happened to democracy.

They don't like the contents of what I said, so they choose the passive aggressive route and just throw words around like "trolling". This is a forum, the whole purpose is responding to what people say, addressing the details, content of their points, etc. Apparently, it's too much for some people.

 

[PL1]

They don't like the contents of what I said, so they choose the passive aggressive route and just throw words around like "trolling". This is a forum, the whole purpose is responding to what people say, addressing the details, content of their points, etc. Apparently, it's too much for some people.

Of course you can write what you want. But this is a forum; there is no "winning".

 

[Westey]

I've heard the duck under major intersections idea many times. If your stations are far apart, there are only stations at major intersections. So essentially you are building a line with subway stations and at-grade running, a roller coaster that maximizes costs by quintupling the cost of the stations and then energy and maintenance costs by having trains slam on the brakes to stop and stations at the bottom of a ramp, then straining the motors to climb a hill after stops. Going over major intersections is more logical, but not pretty. So eventually Why not just build a subway is the result.

Or stay elevated.

 

[Westey]

You raise a good point about having some trains running full route length while the underground sections doing a short-turn. The problem, is that such a system would significantly raise operational costs. When a system is automated, it doesn't cost a cent more to run a train every 2 minutes than every 10 except for electricity. By separating the 2 lines, the underground portion could be automated IF it has exclusive ROW on the tracks. You can't have an automated train run on the same tracks as a manually controlled one. This means that labour costs for the increased service would rise significantly. Considering how the TTC are terminally bitching about how little money it has, it should be automating lines where possible.

I suspect that the would have to a way of bypassing the at-grade portion and connecting the two ends. I don't know if this follows Lawrence and eventually joins Line B-D (Line 2). or does it go down to St. Clair and hit Warden on the B-D and Scarborough GO and Kennedy. or just follow Eglinton. In any situation, they would have to break into the tunnel near Laird and branch off with a line that soon becomes elevated the rest of the way until it joins the EELRT which started at Kennedy as elevated.
Unbelievable best-case scenario is EELRT built in 10 years. Realistic best-case-scenario it's built in 15 years.
Realistic is 20 to 25 years.
I see this being done in the 40 to 50-year time frame, by which time there may be a few ways around Eglinton (Crosstown GO, Ontario Line to Finch, Sheppard subway to Scarborough) so they can shut the line where the major construction is occurring (Laird). And by that time, most who lived through the construction will no longer be there.

 

[lastcommodore]

And you seem to be grasping for straws here. "It's not always slower than buses, sometimes it's a tad bit faster, that makes the Billions squandered totally worth it". And I've taken the FWLRT six times this month, four times in rush hour, not once has it been below 50 minutes, which is close to your bus time in rush hour. Not much better.

Sometimes i feel like a broken record (Not directed to anyone in particular), so I apologize to anyone who feels i've said this too many times but i really want to hammer in the point about 6 FW speeds... In short, it is currently bad but currently savable.

The current speeds of 6 FW are ~12.5 to 14kmh depending on the runtime (50 to 44 min). I must once again compare this to the Paris T9 which being almost entirely identical (if not less ideal given multiple bends) in rolling stock, length, stop spacing, etc. achieves 19kmh. 6FW, if ran at 19kmh avg, can make that distance in 32m, or faster than the bus that it replaced even during off-peak hours. This speed discrepancy is very clearly a problem of TTC operating procedure and TSP.

Is the line slower than the bus now? During rush hour, no. During off-peak, yes. Is it capable of being faster than the off-peak bus? Yes, without spending a dime more.

Cost, maintenance, and design are separate issues. But I have to state, "Just build it differently" is entirely useless if the operations will kneecap it as well... If a person is being an annoying sunday driver in an old toyota corolla, giving him a muscle car won't make him go much faster.

 

[hw621]

Transmania did a video on the line. The ride was 40 minutes and it seems that the LRV rarely waited at red lights.

 

[APTA-2048]

Transmania did a video on the line. The ride was 40 minutes and it seems that the LRV rarely waited at red lights.

There is a transit signal priority trial at select intersections as of today. A friend did the trip in 39 minutes.

 

[hw621]

There is a transit signal priority trial a select intersections as of today. A friend did the trip in 39 minutes.

The same video covered both Line 6 and Line 5. TBH Line 6 seems to run faster than Line 5 on the surface portion...

 

[APTA-2048]

The same video covered both Line 6 and Line 5. TBH Line 6 seems to run faster than Line 5 on the surface portion...

As far as I know, nothing has been set up on Eglinton yet.

 

[thenorth]

Transmania did a video on the line. The ride was 40 minutes and it seems that the LRV rarely waited at red lights.

There is a transit signal priority trial at select intersections as of today. A friend did the trip in 39 minutes.

Is this the video in question (I recommend watching at 2x to 4x speed)?

I counted it stopping at 10 red lights.

That said, west of Mivlan Rumike Station, I counted only one red light (at Albion Road). The remaining nine red light stops were all east of Mivan Rumike.

So I would hypothesize that signal priority was only active on the western half of the line, at least in that video.

 

[thenorth]

Is this the video in question?

I counted it stopping at 10 red lights.

That said, west of Mivlan Rumike Station, I counted only one red light (at Albion Road). The remaining nine red light stops were all east of Mivan Rumike.

So I would hypothesize that signal priority was only active on the western half of the line, at least in that video.

Assuming my hypothesis is correct, getting down to 34 minute (which was what MX expected during planning), or even 30 min end-to-end runtimes seems entirely plausible. West of Mivlan Rumike it was a very smooth and quick ride.