Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why? Some drivists have to hold for a bus carrying many more people than they are? Big deal. Hold.

You must have misunderstood my comments. I did not mention anything about leaving space for drivers, only that the bus must stop far enough past the channelization island for the rear door to be flush with the curb, about 35m.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yes, some excellent research that puts the bus, not the bus passenger, at the centre of consideration.

The thing you neglect is that there are people on that bus, many more people than you perceive to be negatively affected by this situation. If we save 15 people 10 seconds, that's arguably better than saving one person 30 seconds.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Then fix the poor road design.

We should, but that's not the point of the discussion. For a number of reasons, we're stuck with what we've got at the moment.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not necessarily. If the bus can completely block the entrance to the right turn cut-off ramp (on the near-side), passengers can safely get on and off the bus onto the ramp. On the far-side, this isn't possible as the bus can only block the exit from the ramp, so the bus needs to drive far enough to get the rear doors onto the sidewalk (either by changing lanes into the ramp or after the ramp ends).

I can't think of how a bus would block access to the ramp while still being able to pull all doors to the curb, and be able to re-enter traffic. A bus needs 20m to pull out of the right turn lane back into the through lane, which is enough space for a vehicle to cut in front.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I can't think of how a bus would block access to the ramp while still being able to pull all doors to the curb, and be able to re-enter traffic. A bus needs 20m to pull out of the right turn lane back into the through lane, which is enough space for a vehicle to cut in front.

My point is the doors don't need to be at the curb if the ramp can be blocked by the bus. I will use the intersection of Montreal Rd and Vanier Parkway as an example (maybe not the best one, but it works well). Looking at the picture below, if a westbound bus on Montreal Rd pulled up to the stop line, even a 40' bus would block access to the right turn cut-off ramp (as the measurement line shows). As such, people could safely use the ramp to get on and off the bus and the doors would be as close as possible to the intersection for easy transfers. When the bus is ready to go, it drives straight ahead, through the intersection (no need to merge). Straight through traffic in that lane could be limited to buses, which would ensure that the bus can get to the stop on a red light (right turning vehicles would quickly get out of the way).



This obviously can't be used everywhere, but it could be used sometimes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

The thing you neglect is that there are people on that bus, many more people than you perceive to be negatively affected by this situation. If we save 15 people 10 seconds, that's arguably better than saving one person 30 seconds.

Yes, but a good share of those 15 people will also be members of that set of "one person" when they go to board or disembark at an inconveniently-placed stop or try to make a now-awkward kitty-corner connection.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yes, but a good share of those 15 people will also be members of that set of "one person" when they go to board or disembark at an inconveniently-placed stop or try to make a now-awkward kitty-corner connection.

True, but there is also the multiplier effect. If there are 10 stops that those 15 people will be delayed by 10 seconds each, that is a 100 second increase in travel time for each person. Better to save 100 seconds at the cost of 30 (or even 60 if it is a problem at both ends of their trip). Now if it is a stop that a large percentage of people will be using, that also changes the math.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

My point is the doors don't need to be at the curb if the ramp can be blocked by the bus. I will use the intersection of Montreal Rd and Vanier Parkway as an example (maybe not the best one, but it works well). Looking at the picture below, if a westbound bus on Montreal Rd pulled up to the stop line, even a 40' bus would block access to the right turn cut-off ramp (as the measurement line shows). As such, people could safely use the ramp to get on and off the bus and the doors would be as close as possible to the intersection for easy transfers. When the bus is ready to go, it drives straight ahead, through the intersection (no need to merge). Straight through traffic in that lane could be limited to buses, which would ensure that the bus can get to the stop on a red light (right turning vehicles would quickly get out of the way).



This obviously can't be used everywhere, but it could be used sometimes.

Besides the fact that asking people to board and alight from the road instead of the sidewalk seems unsafe, and that the high step height will make it difficult for some folks to board or alight from the bus, where would you locate the bus stop/shelter if the setup was as you propose? On that tiny channelization island?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Besides the fact that asking people to board and alight from the road instead of the sidewalk seems unsafe, and that the high step height will make it difficult for some folks to board or alight from the bus, where would you locate the bus stop/shelter if the setup was as you propose? On that tiny channelization island?

It might seem unsafe, but it is only a perception (they would wait on the sidewalk until the bus arrives). The shelter could be on the sidewalk as normal. Your point about the higher step is well taken but don't forget not all streets with bus service have sidewalks and curbs. Some just have a paved shoulder.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It might seem unsafe, but it is only a perception (they would wait on the sidewalk until the bus arrives). The shelter could be on the sidewalk as normal. Your point about the higher step is well taken but don't forget not all streets with bus service have sidewalks and curbs. Some just have a paved shoulder.

The point is that accessibility standards dictate that the bus should pull to the curb when possible. Though the buses can kneel and deploy the ramp without a curb, it takes more time, and is less accessible for all passengers. The larger step also increases dwell time, as less agile passengers grab onto the handles and lower themselves down onto the road. Though there are many locations where passengers board from the shoulder of the road, these stops are usually not very heavily used.

With your concept, the operator also has to wait for passengers to get off the road before driving away, and has to wait for passengers to walk out to the door when arriving at the stop. The liability would just be too great.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Catenary

The point is that accessibility standards dictate that the bus should pull to the curb when possible. Though the buses can kneel and deploy the ramp without a curb, it takes more time, and is less accessible for all passengers. The larger step also increases dwell time, as less agile passengers grab onto the handles and lower themselves down onto the road. Though there are many locations where passengers board from the shoulder of the road, these stops are usually not very heavily used.

With your concept, the operator also has to wait for passengers to get off the road before driving away, and has to wait for passengers to walk out to the door when arriving at the stop. The liability would just be too great.

All fair points. Looking further at the idea, it will only make about a 40' difference in stop location, so probably not worth it.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by roger1818

All fair points. Looking further at the idea, it will only make about a 40' difference in stop location, so probably not worth it.

The point to be made is that we should be eliminating channelized right turns wherever possible. But that has nothing to do with the LRT extension environmental assessment.

[Multi-modal]

Stage 2 Presentation regarding Lawn Avenue Parkette design. Nothing all that interesting unless you live in the neighborhood.

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/u...s_20170914.pdf

[roger1818]

Not directly related to LRT, but I noticed today that the off ramp at Moodie on the Queensway westbound was closed and it looked like they were rerouting it to use the new overpass over the Transitway extension from Bayshore. I expect it will open soon.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not directly related to LRT, but I noticed today that the off ramp at Moodie on the Queensway westbound was closed and it looked like they were rerouting it to use the new overpass over the Transitway extension from Bayshore. I expect it will open soon.

Drove by this morning and traffic is now routed on the new overpass above the future transitway. Was limited to a single lane, and still obviously a heavy construction zone, but definitely progress

[zzptichka]

Progress as of today (high-res)

[HighwayStar]

I want a drone... nice one zzptichka !

[Multi-modal]

So... something has been bugging me about Stage 2. Has anybody noticed how awful the Baseline Station design is? You can see the latest design on the last slide of the "Baseline and Woodroffe Stormwater Management Pond Environmental Assessment Study" presentation on the Stage 2 website:

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/u...eSWMPEA_CW.pdf

This shows that the main BRT station will be south of the existing station and south of the future LRT station. This seems like a big waste of money when they have existing BRT infrastructure, but I guess its a fine-enough setup for the Southwest Transitway. What really concerns me though is the future Baseline BRT...

Lets pretend I am a westbound bus #88 trying to navigate this station, and lets assume they have decommissioned the existing busway (as it states on the plan) and have built the new "transit main street" through the constellation parking lot. Bus #88 would have to make the following turns:

• turn left from Navaho to Woodroffe
• right on to College
• left in to the new BRT station
• right within the station loop
• right again
• left back on to College
• right on to the transit main street
• left on to Navaho

The eastbound #88 would have to make a similar convoluted route... wasting passenger time, comfort, and money.

Why don't they just make use of the existing northbound busway + southbound Woodroffe to loop around the LRT station.

So westbound #88 would instead do this:

• turn left from Navaho to Woodroffe
• right on to College
• right on to existing northbound busway
• left on to Navaho

So simply, so much cheaper! Honestly if someone can explain the rational behind the proposed station... I am baffled by the complexity of it

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

So simply, so much cheaper! Honestly if someone can explain the rational behind the proposed station... I am baffled by the complexity of it

The People Who Designed It Don't Take Transit.

They do not understand - are INCAPABLE of understanding - that things like passenger comfort and convenience matter.

They engineer for vehicle movements. They do not engineer for human movements. They can't. They are utterly incapable of understanding them.

It's pretty much that simple. It's how we ended up with Temporary Baseline station that lacked shelter for most of the fall and winter it was first in service. It's how we got that god-awful pedestrian detour now in effect at Bayview. It's why the Hurdman bus loop is such a piece of garbage.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The People Who Designed It Don't Take Transit.

They do not understand - are INCAPABLE of understanding - that things like passenger comfort and convenience matter.

They engineer for vehicle movements. They do not engineer for human movements. They can't. They are utterly incapable of understanding them.

It's pretty much that simple. It's how we ended up with Temporary Baseline station that lacked shelter for most of the fall and winter it was first in service. It's how we got that god-awful pedestrian detour now in effect at Bayview. It's why the Hurdman bus loop is such a piece of garbage.

But that's just the thing... The station doesn't even make sense for bus movements. The station requires a number of left-turns that are going to increase delay and require additional buses to be in-service for the Baseline BRT. It seems to prioritize the southwest transitway over the Baseline BRT when that southwest transitway will probably be gobbled up by the LRT within a couple decades, which leaves only the Baseline BRT with a non-sensical station design.

O well, I can only hope that the wasteful new BRT station south of the LRT station is value-engineered out of the design by the consortium proposals.

[zzptichka]

I like that they are reserving 50-car parking lot on a busy tight station for staff. Nice touch.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day...

Remember too that they are desperately trying to avoid making any kind of sensible use of the three tunnel layout of the lower 'platform' level - god forbid that they try to reuse the original concept => Woodroffe buses on the SW BRT thru the center tunnel and hi-volume line buses on either side dropping down to and rising up from the depessed station area, and light local buses on the surface area, All of which could be easily re-conceptualized to => LRT thru the center tunnel, and contraflow SW BRT buses unloading/loading in fare-paid easy-cross-to-continue-in-the-same-direction platforms, with local buses above (Baseline buses get either above or below, above being a better choice IMHO). Northbound BRT Woodroffe buses would reverse direction simply by a ramp up to Baseline, cross east via Baseline, and ramp drop back down to the station southbound. IE - the SW transitway has a convenient and logical terminus to/from the LRT terminus - a beautiful, smooth, easy transfer.
OMG - makes too much sense - can never be done !!. <sigh>

NoEnJoy!

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

So... something has been bugging me about Stage 2. Has anybody noticed how awful the Baseline Station design is? You can see the latest design on the last slide of the "Baseline and Woodroffe Stormwater Management Pond Environmental Assessment Study" presentation on the Stage 2 website:

http://www.stage2lrt.ca/wp-content/u...eSWMPEA_CW.pdf

This shows that the main BRT station will be south of the existing station and south of the future LRT station. This seems like a big waste of money when they have existing BRT infrastructure, but I guess its a fine-enough setup for the Southwest Transitway. What really concerns me though is the future Baseline BRT...

Lets pretend I am a westbound bus #88 trying to navigate this station, and lets assume they have decommissioned the existing busway (as it states on the plan) and have built the new "transit main street" through the constellation parking lot. Bus #88 would have to make the following turns:

• turn left from Navaho to Woodroffe
• right on to College
• left in to the new BRT station
• right within the station loop
• right again
• left back on to College
• right on to the transit main street
• left on to Navaho

The eastbound #88 would have to make a similar convoluted route... wasting passenger time, comfort, and money.

Why don't they just make use of the existing northbound busway + southbound Woodroffe to loop around the LRT station.

So westbound #88 would instead do this:

• turn left from Navaho to Woodroffe
• right on to College
• right on to existing northbound busway
• left on to Navaho

So simply, so much cheaper! Honestly if someone can explain the rational behind the proposed station... I am baffled by the complexity of it

I was at one of the Stage 2 open houses about a year or so ago, arguing this exact point with one of then. His argument was that N/S buses can easily stop just S of the LRT station. I said showed him a few options where having a stop for E/W routes N of the LRT station is more efficient overall. He just arrogantly basically said that they decided already. :-S