Transportfan
Senior Member
It would make monetary sense to have the westbound drivers get off at Laird and run with the cab empty to Mount Dennis and have them change to run eastbound.
|
|
|
It would make monetary sense to have the westbound drivers get off at Laird and run with the cab empty to Mount Dennis and have them change to run eastbound.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Better to have a human onboard to handle rowdyism, medical emergencies, and tourist inquiries. May even pick up litter.
zang
Senior Member
As we learned the hard way from cutting back on a human presence in the subway.
urbancog
Active Member
The plan is for the human operator to initiate open & close of doors at each underground station, then trigger automated train operation to start movement of the train.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Would be better to have the human "supervise" the automated opening & closing the doors and "supervise" the train operation through the tunnels.
A supervisor would be paid more than an operator.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I was out on Eglinton today and saw plenty of trams along the line. Station signs seemed to predict their arrival accurately, and the voice announcements that a tram was arriving was operating. (digression - a woman I chatted with at the bus stop who lives in an apartment on Eglinton vociferously complained about how loud these announcements are in her apartment....perhaps residents on Eg will stop noticing after a while)
I stood at the O'Connor stop for a while (not by choice, but because the 34 bus was severely delayed) and timed the light cycles. In the absence of a tram, the eastward transit signal at Eglinton Square provided a green signal for about 15 seconds before turning yellow. The cycle then did not present a permissive transit signal for over 2 minutes, as the various auto traffic routes were cleared. The transit signal at Vic Park seemed to expedite eastbound trams into the O'Connor station, but they then had to wait for a permissive signal to leave the station. I timed trams that, after a reasonable station dwell, waited as long as 95 seconds for a transit signal to proceed. This seemed to be expected by the operators, as I saw some leave their seat and stretch or grab a bite from their lunchbox, and had time to do so and still get back "at the throttle" before their signal turned green.
It happened that my bus got a green at the same time as an eastward tram, so I was able to watch the tram's progress on the ride to Kennedy. Mostly, the bus got ahead of the tram thanks to aggressive acceleration from each light as it turned green.... but with the overloaded bus making long stops to load/unload, the tram caught up.... but was held at intersections by the same red light as the bus. So our progress reaching and then leaving each signalled intersection was identical. The tram clearly collected delay at most lights.
My conclusion is that the cumulative delay caused by trams waiting for a permissive signal at each intersection adds 3-5 minutes to the trip time between Vic Park and Kennedy. I don't know if the current testing is targeted to the eventual operating schedule, but it sure seems that the absence of true transit vehicle priority is downgrading the potential of the line. So much for squeezing LRT quality performance out of our newest street car line.
- Paul
I stood at the O'Connor stop for a while (not by choice, but because the 34 bus was severely delayed) and timed the light cycles. In the absence of a tram, the eastward transit signal at Eglinton Square provided a green signal for about 15 seconds before turning yellow. The cycle then did not present a permissive transit signal for over 2 minutes, as the various auto traffic routes were cleared. The transit signal at Vic Park seemed to expedite eastbound trams into the O'Connor station, but they then had to wait for a permissive signal to leave the station. I timed trams that, after a reasonable station dwell, waited as long as 95 seconds for a transit signal to proceed. This seemed to be expected by the operators, as I saw some leave their seat and stretch or grab a bite from their lunchbox, and had time to do so and still get back "at the throttle" before their signal turned green.
It happened that my bus got a green at the same time as an eastward tram, so I was able to watch the tram's progress on the ride to Kennedy. Mostly, the bus got ahead of the tram thanks to aggressive acceleration from each light as it turned green.... but with the overloaded bus making long stops to load/unload, the tram caught up.... but was held at intersections by the same red light as the bus. So our progress reaching and then leaving each signalled intersection was identical. The tram clearly collected delay at most lights.
My conclusion is that the cumulative delay caused by trams waiting for a permissive signal at each intersection adds 3-5 minutes to the trip time between Vic Park and Kennedy. I don't know if the current testing is targeted to the eventual operating schedule, but it sure seems that the absence of true transit vehicle priority is downgrading the potential of the line. So much for squeezing LRT quality performance out of our newest street car line.
- Paul
Last edited:
A 6264
Active Member
I was on Eglinton as well today, maybe I even saw crs1026 and didn't know it. The main thing I noticed was 7 maintenance workers at one outdoor station, wiping it all down with rags, including 2 on a ladder. Good to see them keeping the stations clean, but I won't get my hopes up that it was a sign of the line opening next month, or even this year.
T3G
Senior Member
I really, really hope this is not the final destination sign formatting.
ShonTron
Moderator
I suspect it will be. The “5” should really be full size to the left, with only the destination on the right, making any short-turns easier to see in advance. (This will also simplify signs on Hurontario Street, should Doug’s chosen name last into the operations phase.)
There will be short-turns, if only due to scheduled work or unexpected issues, like the subway does.
T3G
Senior Member
At the very least, if they insist on pointlessly shoving the line name into it, it would be helpful for the destination to be preceeded by "to". But yes, 5 KENNEDY in large text is all that they need.
Amare
Senior Member
That's exactly what it should be like.
Funny because out of all the options they were testing, that didnt seem to be one that they thought of. I dont know why thing like this seem to be rocket science to the people at the top making these decisions.
Steve X
Senior Member
micheal_can
Senior Member
Imagine someone who is new to Toronto and is using transit for the first time. Add to the possibility that they do not speak English. It would be much different if these only went to stations like the subways do where it is well labeled what they are and where they are going.
Amare
Senior Member
It's not only about Torontonians, or those residing in the GTA. This is about wayfinding, which is used by everyone including those who arent familiar with the system, newcomers, tourists, etc.
Do you think these people will understand what "Kennedy" means when their vehicle is arriving?
The answer to the above question is, very likely no they wouldnt.
Your rebuttal would be (and rightly so) that this is already used on the Bloor-Danforth line. Yes that it true, but it's old and antiquated.
WillTo
Senior Member
I have used systems around the world that do not use a preposition in the destination sign (e.g. "to")
If the preposition is in a language I don't understand, I don't know it is a preposition. So having it is actually more confusing.