chrisw
Active Member
This is what crossing arms are for.
|
|
|
McGillicuddy
New Member
Okay, let's talk this through.
In the case of Queen's Quay, the boom barriers are 100+ metres away from the nearest intersection, and exclusively serve to prevent drivers from entering the portal head-on. This is a textbook case for something like a boom barrier.
In the case of traffic along Eglinton, we'd be trying to solve a different problem: turning drivers, rather than drivers approaching head-on. This makes the technology far less useful.
While an LRT can hit any sort of driver (turning, straight through, whatever), drivers going straight through tend to present a much lower risk. Someone going straight through an intersection will only hit an LRT if they run a red light, and these drivers should also be looking straight ahead, which gives them a huge advantage at spotting the LRT in their peripheral vision. Doubtless there will still be collisions of this type, but they won't be the main problem.
Drivers who are turning have to use their mirrors or physically look behind them in order to spot an LRT approaching from behind them, creating an obvious danger of inattention. And even if these drivers do spot a train, they'll be spotting it in their mirrors or at weird angles, which will limit their ability to accurately judge its speed, which will lead some drivers into disastrous maneuvers. These two errors (inattention in making turns, and misjudging the LRT's speed in planning your maneuvers) will almost certainly be the main causes of collisions along Eglinton.
So. Boom barriers. The suggestion is that we're going to install boom barriers along the LRT route, at the edges of the LRT right-of-way, parallel to Eglinton. That means that these barriers will be at 90-degree angles from turning traffic, which is an obvious problem if one of our goals is to address driver inattention.
Some LRT collisions might still be be prevented: an inattentive driver who might otherwise steer right into the path of an LRT might start their maneuver, spot the barrier partway through, and slam on their brakes. This is good news for keeping the LRTs running on time, but it is also going to produce exciting new collisions just off the ROW. In other cases, drivers are going to be so distracted that they won't apply the brakes until they actually hit the barrier. This might produce some net-new collisions with the LRT. (A inattentive driver who would otherwise have gotten away with a maneuver by the very skin of their teeth might now hit the barrier and brake at that juncture, coming to a stop within the ROW...)
And boom barriers will also probably be ineffective against the other error I described: "I can beat that LRT" and "I can beat that barrier" are essentially the same mentality.
This just isn't a good usage case.
In the case of Queen's Quay, the boom barriers are 100+ metres away from the nearest intersection, and exclusively serve to prevent drivers from entering the portal head-on. This is a textbook case for something like a boom barrier.
In the case of traffic along Eglinton, we'd be trying to solve a different problem: turning drivers, rather than drivers approaching head-on. This makes the technology far less useful.
While an LRT can hit any sort of driver (turning, straight through, whatever), drivers going straight through tend to present a much lower risk. Someone going straight through an intersection will only hit an LRT if they run a red light, and these drivers should also be looking straight ahead, which gives them a huge advantage at spotting the LRT in their peripheral vision. Doubtless there will still be collisions of this type, but they won't be the main problem.
Drivers who are turning have to use their mirrors or physically look behind them in order to spot an LRT approaching from behind them, creating an obvious danger of inattention. And even if these drivers do spot a train, they'll be spotting it in their mirrors or at weird angles, which will limit their ability to accurately judge its speed, which will lead some drivers into disastrous maneuvers. These two errors (inattention in making turns, and misjudging the LRT's speed in planning your maneuvers) will almost certainly be the main causes of collisions along Eglinton.
So. Boom barriers. The suggestion is that we're going to install boom barriers along the LRT route, at the edges of the LRT right-of-way, parallel to Eglinton. That means that these barriers will be at 90-degree angles from turning traffic, which is an obvious problem if one of our goals is to address driver inattention.
Some LRT collisions might still be be prevented: an inattentive driver who might otherwise steer right into the path of an LRT might start their maneuver, spot the barrier partway through, and slam on their brakes. This is good news for keeping the LRTs running on time, but it is also going to produce exciting new collisions just off the ROW. In other cases, drivers are going to be so distracted that they won't apply the brakes until they actually hit the barrier. This might produce some net-new collisions with the LRT. (A inattentive driver who would otherwise have gotten away with a maneuver by the very skin of their teeth might now hit the barrier and brake at that juncture, coming to a stop within the ROW...)
And boom barriers will also probably be ineffective against the other error I described: "I can beat that LRT" and "I can beat that barrier" are essentially the same mentality.
This just isn't a good usage case.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
I disagree. If what you suggest was the case for line 5, then it would be going into revenue service in the January board period.
Which it most certainly is not.
Sure, staffing is an issue - they discovered that pretty quickly due to the short turnarounds at the ends of the Finch Line (and which they should have been able to see considering their experience with operating the subway lines). But it's not the issue preventing service here.
Dan
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Calgary has boom gates for the left turning lanes at some intersections.
Watch from 6:10 - 12:30
crs1026
Superstar
There are two different functions being confused here.
One is traffic control, ie enforcing the LRV's right to proceed through intersections and ensuring motorists cede right of way.
The other is entry gates to prevent motorists from erroneously driving into and down the LRT tracks, especially when making a turn..
Having gates control left turn lanes is an interesting idea for Lines 5 and 6, but I doubt it is practical in the Toronto context, probably too irritating for drivers, and the few seconds that the gate take to raise and lower would undermine efficiency of the traffic light cycles. I can see Toronto motorists doing some pretty impulsive and stupid things to cheat the gates. And then phone the Premier on his private number to complain.
Having gates that block the LRT tracks, and raise when an LRV actually approaches, might be doable. I can see the value in those given the complicated cognitive environment of a LRT intersection.... far more signage, light varieties, and awkward sightlines that the average driver may expect. The new intersection design is fundamentally error likely. And the operation of these is probably less difficult to manage. Gates that are closer to parking lot gates, rather than railway crossing protection, would likely do the trick.... but some will fail periodically, affecting transit service, so not a silver bullet.
Education and experience will likely solve much of the problem. The occasional car down the tracks incident is annoying to transit riders, but these incidents haven't led to high level injury or fatalities (yet, anyways). Maybe better to not overthink.
- Paul
One is traffic control, ie enforcing the LRV's right to proceed through intersections and ensuring motorists cede right of way.
The other is entry gates to prevent motorists from erroneously driving into and down the LRT tracks, especially when making a turn..
Having gates control left turn lanes is an interesting idea for Lines 5 and 6, but I doubt it is practical in the Toronto context, probably too irritating for drivers, and the few seconds that the gate take to raise and lower would undermine efficiency of the traffic light cycles. I can see Toronto motorists doing some pretty impulsive and stupid things to cheat the gates. And then phone the Premier on his private number to complain.
Having gates that block the LRT tracks, and raise when an LRV actually approaches, might be doable. I can see the value in those given the complicated cognitive environment of a LRT intersection.... far more signage, light varieties, and awkward sightlines that the average driver may expect. The new intersection design is fundamentally error likely. And the operation of these is probably less difficult to manage. Gates that are closer to parking lot gates, rather than railway crossing protection, would likely do the trick.... but some will fail periodically, affecting transit service, so not a silver bullet.
Education and experience will likely solve much of the problem. The occasional car down the tracks incident is annoying to transit riders, but these incidents haven't led to high level injury or fatalities (yet, anyways). Maybe better to not overthink.
- Paul
Last edited:
Voltz
Senior Member
I do agree with having short crossing arms for the left turn lanes on Eglinton, it would be the most likely source of vehicles that get into collisions, but with more precise activation than with a railway to reduce drivers jumping around the arms or complaining to Doug.
But whatever type of crossing arms are used, it depends on proper signal priority activation, if it can detect an approaching LRV from far enough away to adjust the signal timings to give it a green light by the time it arrives then you'll get the main benefit.
But whatever type of crossing arms are used, it depends on proper signal priority activation, if it can detect an approaching LRV from far enough away to adjust the signal timings to give it a green light by the time it arrives then you'll get the main benefit.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I am talking about proper railway crossing arms. How many accidents happen when a freight train doing 60 mph collide with a car that is impatient? Yes they do happen, but, generally they serve the purpose of allowing that train to travel unimpeded by traffic. Which means that the LRT's speed can be set at a speed that makes better sense.
ThenWhat
New Member
Regarding TPS on Lines 5 and 6, in April 2025 the General Manager of Transportation Services filed the following report:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf
Then in December the City Council adopted a resolution requesting a "more aggressive" TPS. The "less aggressive" (i.e. conditional) TPS was previously chosen for some reasons and published so anyone who paid any attention had a long time to think about it. I would like to see the "more aggressive" TPS. But this last minute scramble doesn't inspire much confidence that anything good will come out of it.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-254795.pdf
Then in December the City Council adopted a resolution requesting a "more aggressive" TPS. The "less aggressive" (i.e. conditional) TPS was previously chosen for some reasons and published so anyone who paid any attention had a long time to think about it. I would like to see the "more aggressive" TPS. But this last minute scramble doesn't inspire much confidence that anything good will come out of it.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Under regular circumstances I would agree with you but Finch, and soon Eglinton, are not normal.
There is nothing a politician loves more than a nice juicy ribbon cutting ceremony. This is why they always show up at them, it's a political win. Finch, however, has been quite the opposite. It was over budget and so late that people were wondering if it would ever open and Queen's Park took most of the political heat for it. Ford thought once it was open he could get this headache off his shoulders but such has not been the case.
QP has had nothing but bad press since it opened. It's become a noose around his political neck and he will do anything to get this line off the political table. Hence, I don't think he would have any problem with TLP or higher speeds. The faster this line goes, the more sleep he can get at night and it could still be a political win. At this point, I bet Ford would love to put a gun to the head of hypocritical Chow and the TTC mandarins until they get these damn trains moving.
duty free
Active Member
Or better yet they could just jerry-rig railway crossing arms to the back of the LRT vehicles themselves. Then throw it down whenever a motorist tries to make an advanced left turn ahead of them.
You wait, I wait, we all wait, everybody waits.
Northern Light
Superstar
I've been looking at the speculation above and this thread clearly suffers from lack of @AlvinofDiaspar 's input.
Not even one suggestion of snipers, or pop up spike strips, or spring-loaded catapults under the paving beside the tracks. (ok that last one sounds a bit more @Richard White )
A complete lack of creativity and devotion to ruthless efficiency. LOL
Not even one suggestion of snipers, or pop up spike strips, or spring-loaded catapults under the paving beside the tracks. (ok that last one sounds a bit more @Richard White )
A complete lack of creativity and devotion to ruthless efficiency. LOL
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
Naw, let them do that, but have cameras for police enforcement.
micheal_can
Senior Member
I mean those could work, but we do not live in a police state.
There are realistic and reasonable things that can be done to make this line better.
PL1
Senior Member
I was going to suggest pneumatic, rising bollards, but if they fail no cars would be able to cross the line...
Edit: And per @robmausser below, slow. So absolutely impractical
Last edited: