[kEiThZ]

^ If by some incredible feat you get to foist this express subway idea on this city, I hope you are forced to stand at a non-express station and enjoy the wrath of all the patrons who now have to take on an unnecessary transfer.

 

[Asterix]

^ If by some incredible feat you get to foist this express subway idea on this city, I hope you are forced to stand at a non-express station and enjoy the wrath of all the patrons who now have to take on an unnecessary transfer.

Given even the most elementary analysis shows that not only will there be improvements of only 3 - 4 minutes for express-to-express riders combined with significant added hassle to non-express riders, but that there will be even more people on the trains (given many riders will be having to increase their total trip distance) and the only way to increase capacity is by reducing headway (something that has been completely failed to be addressed), is there really anyone who thinks so little of the competence of TTC management that they believe there is actually the slimmest possibility they might take this proposal seriously?

 

[Swarley]

I really hope noone is flying here just to meet with you...

 

[Asterix]

I really hope noone is flying here just to meet with you...

The claim is a "key Federal Government Director" is flying to meet her. One might ask why a "key Federal Government Director" is so interested in a proposal specifically aimed at the TTC given the recent history of the Federal government in all things transit related in Toronto.

Since when have relatively minor capital expenditures (claims of less than $1 million per station for the barriers are small in the grand scheme of things) or the operation of a municipal transit system (whether to run express trains or not) been the domain of the Feds?

Even if the issue was about safety and the life-sucking death pits, is that not a provincial jurisdiction?

I'm just not buying it. Am I that off base?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Now I have 4 direct highly credible referrals to Mr. Gary Webster, the Chief Manager of the TTC.

Also a key Federal Government Director also is flying to Toronto to meet with me.

My mission and journey will not be ended until I receive professional and unbiased documentation which will be able to put my work to rest.

Quite honestly, I don't think it is possible to prove my theories as unbenficial for the "masses". It is called "mass" transit the last time I checked.

As far as the few that there are minor inconveniences for, these can be solved with slight bus route changes.

Sharon.

I, and I'm sure many others, would appreciate it if you addressed Victor's calculations. His numbers show that you are hardly cutting travel time in half and in many cases INCREASING travel time.

 

[GenerationW]

I'm just not buying it. Am I that off base?

Not at all. I'd say you're glued directly on the base.

 

[subway safety]

Headway............Hmmmmmm.


What is the definition of headway?

A train sitting in the tunnel, in front of the other train , sitting in the tunnel.

What does that equal 0 Headway.

I am not the one to suggest whether this requires atc to be optimum or not.

One thing I do know atc only offers 26% capacity improvement capability.

What I have created will create a 203% capacity improvement capability, alongside I have figured out further how to have a plan toward achieving the new ridership for that capacity.

Ridership capacity improvement means nothing if you can't fill the spots. Mind you, it will be an extremely improved condition for the present riders with 1. safety, 2. efficiency and 3. comfort, as apposed to having your face impaled against the train door while, someone behind is picking your pocket, while another is fantasizing......whatever. You got my point.

They have laws for overcrowding for animals in cages. Somehow, mankind has forgotten it's own needs for personal space and personal comfort. That's why alot of people are willing to pay more for the GO whether they can afford it or not.
Sharon.

 

[Swarley]

Headway............Hmmmmmm.
What I have created will create a 203% capacity improvement capability,

See my post a page or two back - your calculation for "203%" is quite wrong. Yet you keep citing it....

 

[andomano]

What is the definition of headway?

A train sitting in the tunnel, in front of the other train , sitting in the tunnel.

What does that equal 0 Headway.

Headway is the time between the trains, so you can't have "0" headway because that would infer that the trains are instantaneously in the same position. Ie, if a train left a station at 6:40, and the next train arrived at 6:41, there would be a one minute headway...

 

[subway safety]

Yes, I do know the real definition of headway....the distance between train in time to get to the same spot.

The real point is transit is not efficient, alongside are cash poor.

Around the world, they have safety, they have, several train lines, express and otherwise, they have, a spiderweb of dozens of connector line, they have atc.

What does TTC have,.......not alot of bang for our buck.

My discovery is that safety is the key to efficiency.

Added to that is the fact of you no longer need atc, and you no longer need to spend 10 million per station. All the excuses are removed.

I will not as much as I would like to share my map, given that I'm sure TTC may be reading some of this. Also given the fact that I have opened a big can or worms.

Check it out for yourself and see how you interpret it?

Safety Requirements within Stations" Building Code of June 1993 Section 3.3.1.17, and section 3.3.1.22

These sections clearly state in a new station or for a renovated station you must install "non-climbable guards" and there must be "no obsticle" in front of train door exits.

The real issure is safety. I just happened to uncover these what I believe to be a con compliancy while doing my research and developments. Also while developing safety and constantly thinking beyond each and every next "pinch point" or obstiicle, I feel I have creating the optimum efficiency solution, that may or may not be optimized with the need for atc to go alongside with it.

Without atc perhaps the efficiency would be say 120%. Dheck out that code thing.
Sharon

 

[Asterix]

Headway............Hmmmmmm.


What is the definition of headway?

A train sitting in the tunnel, in front of the other train , sitting in the tunnel.

What does that equal 0 Headway.

Andomano has already pointed out your faulty understanding of headway.

Here's another example to highlight your misunderstanding and why you are incorrect thinking that your express trains will generate any increased capacity (to say nothing of the completely fanciful 203%).

Say you are standing in Eglinton station. All you can see of the subway system is from one end of the station platform to the other. You have no visibility what trains are doing before they enter the station or after they leave.

A train arrives, when the front of the train enters the station, it has slowed to 20km/h. You have no idea how fast it was going further up the tunnel.

It loads up passengers and leaves the station (30 seconds total). When the end of the train leaves the station, it has accelerated to 20km/h. You have no idea how fast it will get further down the line.

The next train starts entering the station exactly 1:30 after the previous train started entering the station. It goes through the exact same process. This 1:30 is the headway, the time between two trains.

You stay in Eglinton station watching successive trains arrive exactly 1:30 after the ones before. All are 20km/h when entering the station. All are 20km/h when leaving the station. What they do before or after that, you have no idea.

Lets say train capacity is 1,000 passengers. Your line capacity then is 1,000 people every 1:30 or 40,000 people an hour.

Now, let's say the trains are slowing down from 50 km/h before you see them and accelerating to 50 km/h after you see them. They are still arriving every 1:30 so line capacity is still 40,000 people an hour.

Now let's say the trains never accelerate faster than 20 km/h. They are still arriving every 1:30 so the line capacity is still 40,000 people an hour.

So you see, how fast the trains go or whether they are running express before or after you see them is completely irrelevant to the capacity of the line. All that matters is what the time is between each train. They could be going 10 km/h for all you know but so long as they arrive every 1:30, the capacity is the same.

If you want to increase the line capacity, the only way to do that is to decrease the time between trains (we'll assume it is not practical to increase the number of passengers on each train). The only way you can SAFELY get trains to run closer together, is to use ATC.

That is your fundamental misunderstanding of subway operations and your insistence otherwise is just further evidence that you have not had anything like a constructive conversation with anyone in any position of authority with the TTC because even the dumbest TTC staffer would be able to understand that concept and explain it to you.

What I have created will create a 203% capacity improvement capability, alongside I have figured out further how to have a plan toward achieving the new ridership for that capacity.

Quite bluntly, no, you have not created a 203% capacity improvement capability. You have not created a 1% capacity improvement capability, to say nothing of enticing new ridership.

The fact you continue to repeat the same tired lines despite the fact you have been asked simple and straightforward questions to justify your statements or pointing out fundamental flaws, indicates you have not done the basic analysis or modelling of your ideas that would be the absolute minimum expected before any presentation or meeting with anyone from the TTC or 'key Federal Government Director'.

Simply thinking about something for 1.5 or 2 years does mean it is constructive or productive thinking. Forgive the crude analogy, but teenage boys spend an awful lot of time thinking about sex but that doesn't mean they are going to be all that skilled their first time, no matter how 'outside the box' their thinking.

 

[Asterix]

All the excuses are removed.

No, the only excuses are those from you as to why you won't answer simple and straightforward questions, why you refuse to acknowledge fundamental flaws pointed out with your proposals and why you steadfastly cling to completely unsupported numbers about potential improvements (203% capacity, for example).

 

[Asterix]

Safety Requirements within Stations" Building Code of June 1993 Section 3.3.1.17, and section 3.3.1.22

Another question that should be simple and straightforward for you to answer:

Can you explain or cite the wording that says those sections are applicable to a subway station and not those of 3.13 titled 'Rapid Transit Stations' (which says nothing about platform barriers)?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'll ask you one last time before I place you on ignore sharon:

I, and I'm sure many others, would appreciate it if you addressed Victor's calculations. His numbers show that you are hardly cutting travel time in half and in many cases INCREASING travel time.

You last couple of posts have done noting to aid your argument, have added nothing to the discussion. All you've done is spew gobble de gook while completely ignoring other members questions.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

This thread has certainly been one of the more entertaining reads that I've had.

Thank you Asterix et al for maintaining the primacy of logic.