turbanplanner
Senior Member
I feel like the average European behaves differently than the average Canadian and people here ignore that fact!
|
|
|
Finch West Line 6 LRT
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
lastcommodore
New Member
I am not going to carry water for the horrible operating procedures the TTC has, but can we please stop with this bit that stop spacing has little effect on travel time and that LRTs (or "LRT" for St. Clair or whatyoucallit) needs to have a stop every 200 meters or else we need a separate bus service which does that?
I am going to quote my comment on 10 Hurontario:
To add onto that spreadsheet, 512 St. Clair hits a whopping 6.6km, 27 stops, and an average stop dist (stdev) of 255 (70) m. This is an insane number of stops for a tram line.
I don't have the exact stats on hand and I am too lazy, but nobody is campaigning for a parallel bus service to line 2 which has avg. stop spacing exceeding 600m. (I just forgot about the 149 but that's purely because some stations do not have elevators. afaik 149 is temporary until those stns get elevators)
Likewise nobody argues for 2 to have a station every half-intersection.
Even 6 finch west and 5 EC East is often considered excessive in the number of stops to prevent a parallel bus service, and 6 FW has 612 (219) stop spacing, nearly three times the stop spacing of St. Clair.
The widest gap between 512 stops at 417 meters is longer than only two stops on 6 FW, Milvan to Duncanwoods and Stevenson to Albion.
As far as I know, even 10 Hurontario will not have parallel bus service.
I feel for those who are not in the best of conditions who have to walk an extra hundred meters if we eliminated half the stops on 512 St. Clair, but at some point we have to draw the line, and perhaps no modern tram system draws the line at 200 meters. At some point it would be faster to just have one of those moving platforms like you see at the airports. It'd probably be faster than the 512 right now, anyway.
We can argue where the line has to be drawn that we'd need a parallel bus service. But it is not at 200m distance.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
If they want to reduce pedestrian injuries they'll want to reduce dependence on automobiles - which are the source of most pedestrian injuries. They'll also want to operate signals such that the pedestrian signals shows a reasonable indication (i.e. not making people wait too long, and especially not making them wait when they can see it's safe to cross).
So what you're saying is the way that the danger is specifically due to the way Toronto programs it's two-stage crossings (such that there's not enough time to cross the street). The Netherlands doesn't do that, they provide a green wave across the two stages in whichever direction(s) pedestrians are currently crossing.
It's also absurd that Toronto thinks they need to delete pedestrian refuge islands to provide enough time to cross the entire street, when they can just ... provide enough Walk time ...
No, as others have pointed out, single-stage crossings increase unnecessary delay for pedestrians, since they prevent pedestrians from crossing half the intersection when that half happens to be clear, they increase cycle lengths (increasing waits for Walk lights), they reduce the flexibility of signals to independently respond to vehicle demand on different sides of the intersection and most of all they prevent signals from being able to provide green lights to approaching trams.
Unncessarily increasing pedestrian delay will increase non-compliance in any country. That's not unique to Denmark, or the UK.
tl;dr:
Telling people not to walk when they clearly see it's safe to walk halfway is a recipe to undermine the credibility of traffic signals. That's bad for safety.
Adding artificial constraints in the signal timing undermines the performance and benefits of safety measures such as fullly-protected turn phases. That's bad for safety.
It is such a typical Toronto traffic safety response to ban multi-stage crossings because of one very specific self-inflicted issue while completely ignoring the safety impacts of preventing signals from ever operating efficiently.
Last edited:
adys123
Active Member
And to add on, stops were added on the surface segment of Line 5 to avoid a parallel bus service - but later, it was found that people still wanted a parallel bus service, so that has been reinstated. What you're left with is the LRT that has far too many stops to be rapid transit, and potentially too few to be local transit. This makes operations difficult as it's trying to be too many things at once.
Voltz
Senior Member
Where were stops added on the surface for line 5 for that purpose?
nfitz
Superstar
I believe there are 14 stops between Yonge Street and Kennedy on Line 5 (sorry, no map with me right now to check).
If 14 is far too many, what is just too many, and what is the number for it to be RT. Bare in mind that Line 2 has 12 stops between Yonge and Kennedy.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't Line 2 and Line 5 have the same number of stops between Keele and Yonge? So are neither RT?
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
In Europe, even SINGLE-lane streets have pedestrian refugee islands. That's starting from a sidewalk, one lane of traffic in one direction, pedestrian refugee island, one lane of traffic in the opposite direction, and sidewalk on the other side, making the pedestrian refugee island a road median. That includes streets with or without traffic signals. In Germany, if there are zebra crossings, automobiles HAVE to stop for pedestrians, unless otherwise signaled.
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
Actually, Line 5 has seven stops between Keele and Yonge, while Line 2 has nine stops between Keele and Yonge. Given that both those sections are tunneled, it is makes sense that the number of stops is similar.
Yonge to Kennedy, Line 2 is considerably (about 3 km) longer because it runs diagonally between Vic Park and Kennedy. And yet, it has fewer stops than Line 5 between Yonge and Kennedy.
I get the reasoning behind making the LRT stops more frequent in the surface section. But if they are going to run parallel bus service anyway, then perhaps they should cut several stops between Don Mills (called Don Valley Stn) and Kennedy. I'd say, cut Aga Khan Museum, Sloane, Hakimi Lebovic, and Ionview. That would bring the number of stops between Yonge and Kennedy to 10, and the average stop spacing to 1.1 km.
JSF-1
Active Member
I agree with all of this though I would keep the stop at Sloane/Bermondsey since its 1km from Wynford and 800m from Victoria Park so it would be in line with Line 2's stops spacing. That said Aga Kahn, and Lebovic are by far the worst offenders on the line. If it were up to me I would have also dropped the stop at Oakwood but it is far to late for that; removing underground stops is far harder then surface level ones.
afransen
Senior Member
drum118
Superstar
Voltz
Senior Member
Getting rid of Ionview would leave a long gap and it is has decent residential density around it.
facepalming_brooklynite
Active Member
Does Denmark have stroads like Finch Avenue? I highly doubt it.
lastcommodore
New Member
I believe you are misunderstanding adys. He is not commenting on the underground portion, but the surface portion of line 5. Thus, for comparing stop spacing, it is more apt to compare Coxwell - Kennedy on 2 vs. Don Valley - Kennedy on 5.
I have taken the liberty of calculating the stop spaces for 2, as I have done for other lines. I have also included the underground section of line 5, Eglinton to Don Valley, compared to line 2, Yonge to Coxwell. My estimations are by the end of this month I will have found the stop spacings for the entire TTC rail network.
| Line | Length (km) | Stops | Average Stop Spacing (stdev), (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2, Coxwell to Kennedy | 8.6 | 7 | 1426 (845) |
| 5, Don Valley to Kennedy (Overground portion)[1] | 6.3 | 11 | 633 (283) |
| 2, Yonge to Coxwell | 5.3 | 9 | 664 (143) |
| 5, Eglinton to Don Valley (Underground portion)[1] | 5.0 | 6 | 1010 (215) |
| 2, Yonge to Kennedy | 13.3 | 14 | 1020 (680) |
| 5, Eglinton to Kennedy | 11.4 | 16 | 758 (314) |
| 6 Finch West (LRT reference) | 10.4 | 18 | 612 (219) |
The takeaway: Line 5 is actually farther spaced apart in the underground portion from Yonge St. to Don Mills Road versus Line 2 from Yonge St. to Coxwell Ave. (Don Mills Rd and Coxwell are functionally the same distance from Yonge), however the overground portion of Line 5 is much tighter distance wise versus Line 2's few stations. These result in a bit of "cancelling out" if measured from Yonge to Kennedy, however 2 Yonge-Kennedy is still on average 25% more spaced apart than 5 (Though this is heavily skewed by Main -> Kennedy, which has incredibly high stop spacing thus the very high stdev for 2 Yonge to Kennedy).
Bringing back the conversation to adys' point: The overground portion on line 5. By comparing 5, overground to 6 FW, we can see that stop-spacing wise they are pretty similar. 5 has some slightly larger stop spacing with slightly less regular stations, but more or less it's close. If operating procedures are identical from line 6, line 5 on the overground portion will most likely perform similarly to what we have seen on line 6. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use 2 Yonge to Coxwell as the reference for how 5 overground would look like "because they have similar stop spacing", because line 2 is underground and operates differently than line 5 overground will.
Stop spacing is not a measure of "RTness" but rather a factor in speed, which does affect "RTness".
[1] yes i know sunnybrook is overground shut up
Rainforest
Senior Member
Removing stops is always controversial, and arguments can be made to keep each particular stop. Well, usually something has to be sacrificed in order to achieve something.
The situation as it stands:
- Surface LRT Line 6 turned out to be much slower than the forecasts. Those forecasts were the very ground for the public acceptance of the Finch LRT project.
- There is a risk the the surface section of Line 5 will turn out equally slow. That's bad for transit in general, and very bad for anyone who hopes to see more light rail built in Toronto.
- It happens that Line 5 will have a parallel bus service along its whole length, even if no stops get removed.
In that situation, I would be inclined to remove every stop that is not essential for transfers between the LRT and the connecting N-S bus routes. Including Sloane and Ionview. Yes, large gaps, but if the parallel bus is reasonably frequent, then it is not a huge problem.
TTC runs express / local bus routes pairs on many arterials these days. The gaps between the express stops can be as wide as 2 km. If that's acceptable for express buses, then why not for the LRT that is marketed as "rapid" transit.
The above applies to Line 5. The options for Line 6 are less certain, because currently the TTC has no plans to run any parallel bus service. If they decide to run such a service, that's a massive change in the concept. Thus for Finch LRT, I would wait till the beginning of Summer, and see what can be done with a better TSP alone, before attempting any other changes.
The situation as it stands:
- Surface LRT Line 6 turned out to be much slower than the forecasts. Those forecasts were the very ground for the public acceptance of the Finch LRT project.
- There is a risk the the surface section of Line 5 will turn out equally slow. That's bad for transit in general, and very bad for anyone who hopes to see more light rail built in Toronto.
- It happens that Line 5 will have a parallel bus service along its whole length, even if no stops get removed.
In that situation, I would be inclined to remove every stop that is not essential for transfers between the LRT and the connecting N-S bus routes. Including Sloane and Ionview. Yes, large gaps, but if the parallel bus is reasonably frequent, then it is not a huge problem.
TTC runs express / local bus routes pairs on many arterials these days. The gaps between the express stops can be as wide as 2 km. If that's acceptable for express buses, then why not for the LRT that is marketed as "rapid" transit.
The above applies to Line 5. The options for Line 6 are less certain, because currently the TTC has no plans to run any parallel bus service. If they decide to run such a service, that's a massive change in the concept. Thus for Finch LRT, I would wait till the beginning of Summer, and see what can be done with a better TSP alone, before attempting any other changes.