[Monarch Butterfly]

 

[M II A II R II K]

So long as it doesn’t stop at red lights at intersections that aren’t stops, including red lights at intersections that are stops where the platform is on the other side of the intersection.

 

[Transportfan]

Cool to see them testing a full length train already. Faster than expected

Hard to believe they're going to run trains that long on the street!

 

[robmausser]

So long as it doesn’t stop at red lights at intersections that aren’t stops, including red lights at intersections that are stops where the platform is on the other side of the intersection.

It will though, Transit Priority was mostly denied by the Toronto transportation commission (aka the car lovers). They are giving the trains a couple more seconds of green as they approach lights, but thats it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

The drivers on Eglinton would benefit from increased green lights for the LRTs

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Hard to believe they're going to run trains that long on the street!

That's only a three car train. If a train is disabled for some reason, it would need to be pushed by an other train all the way to the MSF at Mt. Dennis. Meaning, a possible six car train. They'll need to test out that possible scenario, just in case. They'll have to test out the limit of the number of cars, one car can push or pull over some distance.

 

[vz64]

So long as it doesn’t stop at red lights at intersections that aren’t stops, including red lights at intersections that are stops where the platform is on the other side of the intersection.

I think they will, unfortunately.. There are too many small intersections that allow left turn (such as Swift Dr., Sloane Ave, Eglinton Square, and Pharmacy Ave around Victoria Park intersection; some of them only 200m apart. from each other), so I think it is almost impossible to synchronize all traffic lights to allow a good throughput frequency. If they had eliminated all these secondary street crossing and left only the main intersections to cross the line, then traffic lights could probably manage a good frequency of trains. They might opt to use the Crosstown as a "two-tier" system: the fast right-of-way part, (Keel to Laird, turning back some trains at Laird), and the slow part (Laird to Kennedy).

 

[M II A II R II K]

It may be inevitable to split the line between the off the road sections and the road sections, unless they short turn more train sets in the underground section or something

 

[Randomguy]

It will though, Transit Priority was mostly denied by the Toronto transportation commission (aka the car lovers). They are giving the trains a couple more seconds of green as they approach lights, but thats it.

This is because "transit priority" is management/politician dream compromise but an engineering nightmare. Train signaling on its own is hard - see basically every new transit line anywhere at the start, adding in this type of constraint just makes it worse (i.e., money and testing on signaling is never budgeted for correctly and making that part of the problem harder is just asking for trouble). And it inherently requires compromise between trains, vehicles, and what you all seem to forget, PEDESTRIANS, which is totally unneeded. We need to stop trying to play a zero sum game between modes of transportation when we don't have too, and this line is a crazy example of this.

 

[robmausser]

This is because "transit priority" is management/politician dream compromise but an engineering nightmare. Train signaling on its own is hard - see basically every new transit line anywhere at the start, adding in this type of constraint just makes it worse (i.e., money and testing on signaling is never budgeted for correctly and making that part of the problem harder is just asking for trouble). And it inherently requires compromise between trains, vehicles, and what you all seem to forget, PEDESTRIANS, which is totally unneeded. We need to stop trying to play a zero sum game between modes of transportation when we don't have too, and this line is a crazy example of this.

Hmm. When I rode the LRTs in Denver, Baltimore and San Diego they had literal gates that came down and stopped cars like a railroad. The trains never stopped, the gates came down and all car traffic stopped.

Seems pretty easy to me from what ive experienced in the US of A

 

[Randomguy]

Hmm. When I rode the LRTs in Denver, Baltimore and San Diego they had literal gates that came down and stopped cars like a railroad. The trains never stopped, the gates came down and all car traffic stopped.

Seems pretty easy to me from what ive experienced in the US of A

If your headway is low enough, street crossings far enough apart, etc, I agree it can work just fine. A quick look at Denver LRT and the shortest headway I found was 10 minutes with most 15 or 30 minutes, and at that length of headway (and more spread out western city/int he burbs), signal priority will work just fine. Trying to make it work with 90s headways (which are awesome as a user, going from 10 minute to 90s headways saves everyone 4m15s per trip per direction!) not so much.

So why build 75% of a line to support 90s headways and all the expense related to that, to then ruin it with a section that can only reasonably support 5+ minute ones (or if your metrolinx, apparently they think they can get to 2 minute headways over that section based on the 15000 people per hour per direction). The only good news is that by pissing off both sides equally, it may actually be fixable with a better solution than a non-sense linear transfer and making this line what it truly should be. What is most annoying is that I doubt it would have cost that much more to do it right the first time....

 

[vz64]

It may be inevitable to split the line between the off the road sections and the road sections, unless they short turn more train sets in the underground section or something

Short-turning is probably a better solution during rush hours. And the "fast" part of the line can be extended to Science Centre station, if they manage traffic at the Leslie intersection (or build an overpass..). That way, the fast part will be connected to a future Ontario Line station.

 

[Obsidian]

Anyone hate the names of a lot of these stations, for example not using the major street at the stop in the name and making everything confusing to non frequent users? would it have kill anyone to have a Weston, Keele North, Dufferin North, Bathurst North or Don Mills South Station. Also i will add Pioneer village and Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station to the shitlist.

 

[Coolstar]

Anyone hate the names of a lot of these stations, for example not using the major street at the stop in the name and making everything confusing to non frequent users? would it have kill anyone to have a Weston, Keele North, Dufferin North, Bathurst North or Don Mills South Station. Also i will add Pioneer village and Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station to the shitlist.

Already have a Weston. I'd would've changed Vaughan Metropolitan Centre to just Vaughan Centre though.

 

[Obsidian]

Vaughan Centre Is still shitty, it should be Highway 7 Station and Mt Dennis can be Weston South Stn.
St Andrew (King West), Osgood (Queen West), St Patrick (Dundas* change the current Dundas to Dundas East) and Queens Park (College West - Queens Park) likewise should also be changed.
These changes would be so much less confusing. Museum could stay unchanged because it's not on a major intersection.

The Bloor and Sheppard lines got it perfect IMHO, just by looking at the name you know exactly where you are, instead of trying to remember what street pioneer village is near to, or trying to remember which of St Andrew and St Patrick is really King or Dundas Street