A computer driving our subway trains?
Automated control: A `bargain' at $750M
Nov. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM
DAVID BRUSER
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

A computer driving our subway trains?
Driving them closer together and sometimes in opposite directions on the same track?
TTC chair Howard Moscoe thinks so.
He calls it automated train control and the only thing separating the city from his driverless subway idea is $750 million. That's also the cost of building only three kilometres of subway with three stations, Moscoe said, adding that his plan would immediately boost rider capacity without sinking a shovel.
The money would cover retrofitting the entire subway with a computer system that tells the train how far it is behind the train in front, when to slow down and when to speed up.
It would allow running trains closer together.
Moscoe says automation would increase rider capacity on the Yonge line by at least 40 per cent.
And there are other interesting possible benefits too, including all-night service and something he calls the "democratization" of subway station management.
Moscoe suggested it's a more economical way to immediately boost ridership than building more subway lines and stations.
"It costs $242 million to build one kilometre (of subway), including the station. Automated train control will allow us to reorganize the way we think about the subway system."
But after hearing the price tag, Bob Kinnear, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, was skeptical, considering how cash-strapped the TTC is and how upset Moscoe got earlier this week after receiving only $1.46 million in federal funding for more security.
"Now he's got this wonderful idea that we want to invest three quarters of a billion dollars? Where's this money coming from?" said Kinnear, whose local represents 8,600 members.
The French town of Lille pioneered driverless trains in 1983 when it launched its light-rail system. Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Turin, Copenhagen and Nuremberg followed with driverless metros or streetcars. New York, Tokyo, Seoul, San Francisco and Toulouse also have automated subways or Light Rapid Transit systems.
In fact, the TTC's Scarborough Rapid Transit uses it on its smaller, mostly ground-level trains, though Kinnear says sometimes operators drive the trains because the automatic system works only 80 per cent of the time.
"There are times when the computer for some reason, isn't able to be used or fails, then (people) drive it," TTC spokesman Marilyn Bolton said of the Scarborough RT, which TTC staff say was the first transit system in North America to go automatic in 1985. "I think there's nothing for the public to fear or we wouldn't be doing it."
Automated train control is already part of the TTC's subway spending plans, but Moscoe says it's not at the moment a budget priority. He told the Star he wants to make it one at the commission's next meeting Dec. 13.
Once automated, the only thing required of the operator at the front of the train would be to look out the window, ensure everyone is safely aboard and manually close the doors. The computer drives to the next station. The cost, in large part, stems from hooking the trains' acceleration, braking and door systems into the automated system.
The system would also allow the TTC to operate two-way, all-night service on only one track — say, from 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. — as it could deftly navigate trains moving in opposite directions out of each other's way using short peripheral, or "cross-over" tracks that run off a main line about every five kilometres, according to one TTC source.
Moscoe sees a spin-off benefit from all-night service: Unlike the current schedule, where maintenance workers have only a few hours each night to work on both tracks, automated trains would leave the opposite track available for longer periods of time.
The system would also free up the second subway employee, the "guard," who looks out the window and manually opens and closes the doors.
With the guards antiquated, Moscoe says the TTC will have extra employees, and he proposes a new rank of workers to be filled: Station Master.
Under his plan, each subway station would be run by the manager who, along with input from a neighbourhood advisory council made up of volunteer transit users, local residents, the ward councillor and station employees, decides how to run that particular station.

Without commenting directly on the article, I did however notice this:

"It costs $242 million to build one kilometre (of subway), including the station. Automated train control will allow us to reorganize the way we think about the subway system."

If I am not mistaken- this number keeps on rising, the last time I remember reading about subway expansion the number was around $100 million per kilometre, now it is suddenly $242 million per kilometre.. It sounds like the TTC is its own enemy with regards to pricing things out, or at least like they would rather not expand the system..

p5

I agree with the all night service...our subways should definetely be running 24/7....even if it means much lower frequencies...but only between say 2:00 Am and 6:00 AM....like 15 min service or something.

I don't see it being all that helpful during anything other than rush hours, as the trains frequencies are more than 1 or 2 minutes, and can esaily be maintained using current systems.

Although I do like the idea of a more "neighbourhood" run subway station with that new station manager idea by using the former operator.






KGB

excellent ideas by Howard Moscoe. I'm kinda surprised. The only thing I'd worry about is safety on the train if that happens. I was actually attacked on the subway once by 10 people. It was a random unprovoked attack and if I had been sitting in the DWA car it wouldn't have happened. (I always sit in the DWA car now at night) So with that person not being in the DWA car now you have to solely rely on the yellow strip.

I don't think this is going to happen. No money. As usual. They can't even come close to getting their top priorities done. What chance does something down the list have?

Great ideas Moscoe! The more trains working at one time the better and all night service is a must for a city like Toronto that never sleeps. Plus it will save money on salaries for drivers in the long term.

***** Speaking of the need for all night service.... complaints are flooding in after the Guns and Roses concert last night at the ACC that went until 2 AM because Acel Rose kept the crowd waiting for 2 hours after the opening band while he got drunk&stoned back stage. As patrons exited THE SUBWAY WAS CLOSED and 15000 people has to wait in the rain for taxis and walk to catch certain all night bus routs. What a disaster!

I don't see it being all that helpful during anything other than rush hours, as the trains frequencies are more than 1 or 2 minutes, and can esaily be maintained using current systems.

Today it isn't much of an issue. In a decade, the timeframe for implementation of something like this, we may find the Yonge portion of YUS is getting uncomfortable outside of rush-hour as well.

Great ideas Moscoe! The more trains working at one time the better and all night service is a must for a city like Toronto that never sleeps. Plus it will save money on salaries for drivers in the long term.

***** Speaking of the need for all night service.... complaints are flooding in after the Guns and Roses concert last night at the ACC that went until 2 AM because Acel Rose kept the crowd waiting for 2 hours after the opening band while he got drunk&stoned back stage. As patrons exited THE SUBWAY WAS CLOSED and 15000 people has to wait in the rain for taxis and walk to catch certain all night bus routs. What a disaster!

Well, I don't think a delayed concert makes for a strong argument, I think there are many other good arguments for all-night subway service. One should not forget though, that tons of cities much bigger than Toronto, including London and Tokyo and Paris, do not have all-night subway service. New York is an exception, not the rule, for big city subway service hours.

The idea is interesting, but here's something else I'd find interesting: how many systems have been retrofitted from driver to driverless? This is different from computer-controlled signalling systems, a commonplace upgrade.

Also, with computer controlled train speeds, pulling into crowded stations along the Yonge line and at Yonge station on the Bloor-Danforth line could be a potential hazzard. Drivers tend to slow down during crowded hours. If there are going to be driverless trains, the odd over-capacity station, like Bloor, may want to consider platform doors before taking out the driver.

Moscoe may be ahead of himself. Also, part of the frequency formula is not necessarily related to who drives, but how many trains you have. When the TTC is operating at 2-min headways, aren't virtually all trains not being tinkered with by maintenance crews in service?

Another element dictating the headways allowable are the blocks ("Blocks" are specific track segments. Each station is one example of a block, while the tunnel in between stations can be made up of several blocks, or one block, count the traffic signals in the tunnel to find out). If the blocks are reconfigured, you might get closer headways. I don't know the detailed mechanical specifics, but isn't this something that may want to be examined before going computer-controlled?

But would you actually get faster service? I wouldn't be so sure, actually, because if the trains are slowing to a crawl in the tunnel because the train ahead is suffering extending dwell times at the platform, the result will perhaps hurt ridership than help - because people will percieve the subway isn't faster afterall if that happens. Seriously though, a 6-car train at 2 minute intervals isn't bad. If capacity is your worry, I'll suggest spending money to create platform extensions to accompany an 8-car train along the Yonge instead of 6. Now, that's obviously more expensive, but I'd argue it may be a better investment. I'd love to see how Moscoe came up with the 40 percent minimum capacity increase because that seems unusually high if you think about it.

The argument is here. The capacity of the Yonge Line can be increased by up to 40% by using this system.

I don't think the article said increased by up to 40% during rush hour. My guess is that the extra capacity is mostly from increased service outside of rush hour.
Headways during rush hours on the Yonge Line are probably as tight as an automated system would run it. It may shorten it by providing a more consistent dwell time (i.e. having it pre-set), leaving passengers on the platform if they can't get in the train and avoiding a domino effect of delays.

The TTC has short headways in rush hour - about the same as Vancouver's automated Skytrain, but with the ocassional long headway thrown in.

This manual has info on calculating capacities and dwell times, etc.

http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326

This diagram shows the consistent dwell times for Skytrain compared to a few other systems.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6545/dwellgf7.jpg

Diagram with headways and dwell times:

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1130/dwell2nn1.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/9833/dwell3eo4.jpg

My guess is that the extra capacity is mostly from increased service outside of rush hour.
If that were the case, wouldn't they be able to just run human-run rush hour frequencies all day without any major one-time expense?

Probably the cost of drivers?
Do they split shifts so that some drivers don't work during the off-peak? i.e. Presumably they remove trains from service in the off-peak.

The Yonge line is highly used all the time of course, but if you can't increase the rush hour capacity, i.e. the time where the problems really occur, then this spending becomes very questionable IMO. Furthermore, overall ridership throughout the day shows the BD having more use than the YUS, although that is probably due to the Spadina portion north of St.Clair West dragging the YUS down, but it doesn't have the same degree of rush hour problems, by which argument, since rush hour headways cannot really be improved anyway, wouldn't the BD be better qualified for recieving that upgrade if they are going to make it? I say extend platforms on YUS if it can be proven physically possible. It's definately possible for most of the Spadina portion, but the downtown core is another matter. That improvement though, would guarantee a solid 25% increase in capacity even during rush hour.

TTC eyes driverless subway
Automated control a 'bargain' at $750M, Moscoe says
Nov. 17, 2006. 11:59 AM
DAVID BRUSER
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

A computer driving our subway trains?

Driving them closer together and sometimes in opposite directions on the same track?

TTC chair Howard Moscoe thinks so.

He calls it automated train control and the only thing separating the city from his driverless subway idea is $750 million. That's also the cost of building only three kilometres of subway with three stations, Moscoe said, adding that his plan would immediately boost rider capacity without sinking a shovel.

The money would cover retrofitting the entire subway with a computer system that tells the train how far it is behind the train in front, when to slow down and when to speed up.

It would allow running trains closer together.

Moscoe says automation would increase rider capacity on the Yonge line by at least 40 per cent.

And there are other interesting possible benefits too, including all-night service and something he calls the "democratization" of subway station management.

Moscoe suggested it's a more economical way to immediately boost ridership than building more subway lines and stations.

"It costs $242 million to build one kilometre (of subway), including the station. Automated train control will allow us to reorganize the way we think about the subway system."

But after hearing the price tag, Bob Kinnear, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, was skeptical, considering how cash-strapped the TTC is and how upset Moscoe got earlier this week after receiving only $1.46 million in federal funding for more security.

"Now he's got this wonderful idea that we want to invest three quarters of a billion dollars? Where's this money coming from?" said Kinnear, whose local represents 8,600 members.

The French town of Lille pioneered driverless trains in 1983 when it launched its light-rail system. Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Turin, Copenhagen and Nuremberg followed with driverless metros or streetcars. New York, Tokyo, Seoul, San Francisco and Toulouse also have automated subways or Light Rapid Transit systems.

In fact, the TTC's Scarborough Rapid Transit uses it on its smaller, mostly ground-level trains, though Kinnear says sometimes operators drive the trains because the automatic system works only 80 per cent of the time.

"There are times when the computer for some reason, isn't able to be used or fails, then (people) drive it," TTC spokesman Marilyn Bolton said of the Scarborough RT, which TTC staff say was the first transit system in North America to go automatic in 1985. "I think there's nothing for the public to fear or we wouldn't be doing it."

Automated train control is already part of the TTC's subway spending plans, but Moscoe says it's not at the moment a budget priority. He told the Star he wants to make it one at the commission's next meeting Dec. 13.

Once automated, the only thing required of the operator at the front of the train would be to look out the window, ensure everyone is safely aboard and manually close the doors. The computer drives to the next station. The cost, in large part, stems from hooking the trains' acceleration, braking and door systems into the automated system.

The system would also allow the TTC to operate two-way, all-night service on only one track — say, from 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. — as it could deftly navigate trains moving in opposite directions out of each other's way using short peripheral, or "cross-over" tracks that run off a main line about every five kilometres, according to one TTC source.

Moscoe sees a spin-off benefit from all-night service: Unlike the current schedule, where maintenance workers have only a few hours each night to work on both tracks, automated trains would leave the opposite track available for longer periods of time.

The system would also free up the second subway employee, the "guard," who looks out the window and manually opens and closes the doors.

With the guards antiquated, Moscoe says the TTC will have extra employees, and he proposes a new rank of workers to be filled: Station Master.

Under his plan, each subway station would be run by the manager who, along with input from a neighbourhood advisory council made up of volunteer transit users, local residents, the ward councillor and station employees, decides how to run that particular station.

The Yonge line is highly used all the time of course, but if you can't increase the rush hour capacity, i.e. the time where the problems really occur, then this spending becomes very questionable IMO. Furthermore, overall ridership throughout the day shows the BD having more use than the YUS, although that is probably due to the Spadina portion north of St.Clair West dragging the YUS down, but it doesn't have the same degree of rush hour problems, by which argument, since rush hour headways cannot really be improved anyway, wouldn't the BD be better qualified for recieving that upgrade if they are going to make it? I say extend platforms on YUS if it can be proven physically possible. It's definately possible for most of the Spadina portion, but the downtown core is another matter. That improvement though, would guarantee a solid 25% increase in capacity even during rush hour.

Woah, I don't understand what your trying to say. Either that or there are a lot of assumptions in that post.

How can you argue that you cannot add capacity in rush hour when headways are the closest, if at other time close headways arent needed. Therefore they must be speaking of making the headways even closer, right?

Woah, I don't understand what your trying to say. Either that or there are a lot of assumptions in that post.

How can you argue that you cannot add capacity in rush hour when headways are the closest, if at other time close headways arent needed. Therefore they must be speaking of making the headways even closer, right?

Your post seems harder to understand than mine 0o (but then, of course, we write our own posts).

It's not really me that is making the assumptions, I'm accusing Moscoe of making assumptions, or at least not being clear in his proposal. I'm asking what the answers are to potential problems for his computer-driven-trains-increasing-capacity idea.

Let's back track; Moscoe says that capacity can be increased on the Yonge by 40 percent, by running trains closer together. At what point in the operating hours he is referring to is unclear, but since rush hour is the point in time where capacity is the biggest concern, it must be logically assumed that he is referring to increasing capacity by 40 percent or more at rush hours. Rush hour frequency is already every 2 mintues, and uses most of the trains in the fleet. Moscoe doesn't explain how to do this without 1)buying more rolling stock, 2)addressing dwell times at stations that cause domino delays, and 3)how to get headways less than 2 minutes without negatively impacting the actual operating speed of service (which could deter riders). It is also unclear what he intends to do with the current block system; will the computer have a close relationship to the existing block organization, which in itself will limit headway improvements (likely well below 40 per cent during rush hours)? A 40 percent reduction in 2 minute headways would be around 1:12 (72 seconds). Dwell times can be longer than that in the core, and that reveberates throughout the lines and affects all stations on the lines that go near the core. Now you see why I'm skeptical you can increase capacity by just letting a computer drive the trains. You can't increase the capacity during rush hours by 40 percent by leaving it to a computer. You can increase by 25 percent by lengthening platforms and increasing trains to 8 cars. Both of these however, require buying more rolling stock (which wasn't addressed by Moscoe).

Increasing capacity outside rush hour is easy, but doesn't require a computer to do that. I think this is probably what Moscoe is referring to, which is grossly skewing the picture and making a fake argument for a grand waste of money. All-night service is coming within a decade anyway regardless of computer driven trains. Sheppard already has the technological requirements in place for all night service, as it is a new line, it just lacks the demand to justify it.

Since the computer-driven trains would seem to be an improvement for off-peak service, it would be arguably better advised to give the Bloor-Danforth line that improvement over Yonge-Uni-Spadina, since the BD gets more use as an average than the YUS when looked at from the scope of an entire day and not just the rush hours, and the capacity increase would be applied mostly, it would seem, to outside the rush.

They have automated subways in Japan, and for some time now haven't they? I'm not worried about the safety factor. I am thrilled at the prospect of 24 hour service!

Your post seems harder to understand than mine 0o (but then, of course, we write our own posts).

It's not really me that is making the assumptions, I'm accusing Moscoe of making assumptions, or at least not being clear in his proposal. I'm asking what the answers are to potential problems for his computer-driven-trains-increasing-capacity idea.

Let's back track; Moscoe says that capacity can be increased on the Yonge by 40 percent, by running trains closer together. At what point in the operating hours he is referring to is unclear, but since rush hour is the point in time where capacity is the biggest concern, it must be logically assumed that he is referring to increasing capacity by 40 percent or more at rush hours. Rush hour frequency is already every 2 mintues, and uses most of the trains in the fleet. Moscoe doesn't explain how to do this without 1)buying more rolling stock, 2)addressing dwell times at stations that cause domino delays, and 3)how to get headways less than 2 minutes without negatively impacting the actual operating speed of service (which could deter riders). It is also unclear what he intends to do with the current block system; will the computer have a close relationship to the existing block organization, which in itself will limit headway improvements (likely well below 40 per cent during rush hours)? A 40 percent reduction in 2 minute headways would be around 1:12 (72 seconds). Dwell times can be longer than that in the core, and that reveberates throughout the lines and affects all stations on the lines that go near the core. Now you see why I'm skeptical you can increase capacity by just letting a computer drive the trains. You can't increase the capacity during rush hours by 40 percent by leaving it to a computer. You can increase by 25 percent by lengthening platforms and increasing trains to 8 cars. Both of these however, require buying more rolling stock (which wasn't addressed by Moscoe).

Increasing capacity outside rush hour is easy, but doesn't require a computer to do that. I think this is probably what Moscoe is referring to, which is grossly skewing the picture and making a fake argument for a grand waste of money. All-night service is coming within a decade anyway regardless of computer driven trains. Sheppard already has the technological requirements in place for all night service, as it is a new line, it just lacks the demand to justify it.

Since the computer-driven trains would seem to be an improvement for off-peak service, it would be arguably better advised to give the Bloor-Danforth line that improvement over Yonge-Uni-Spadina, since the BD gets more use as an average than the YUS when looked at from the scope of an entire day and not just the rush hours, and the capacity increase would be applied mostly, it would seem, to outside the rush.
Haha, I didn't read my post, but yeah I get what you mean.

It can be safe to say that reducing the headways by 35 seconds would not require an increase in our rolling-stock. Concerning dwell times, can one say that if the headways were reduced to 1:12 that dwell times would also be reduced because there is less time for the passengers to accumulate on the platform. All night service may be comming in the next decade regardless of this purchase of a computer driven system. What Mr. Moscoe is trying to say is that this can't happen because unlike other cities with 24 hour subway services, we only have 1 track in each direction in nearly all places in the system. Track repairs cannot be executed on an active line, and that this system would solve this large barrier in the TTC running all night service.

What would be the point of giving this to the BD line when headways arent at maximum during off-peak hours. They can just run more driven trains if they wanted to increase capacity.

I think it is a good idea but only if Toronto has the money and Toronto doesn't.
For that kind of money they could replace the entire streetcar fleet which is a neccessity. Increase the number of buses. They could build complete LRT and/or BRT for that kind of money or finish the Sheppard line to STC.
The TTC has far greater priorities than this.
ROW on Eglinton from the airport to Kingston RD, replace the older buses, build a new LRT line to Portlands on the east of Union and then west to Miminco.
A computerized subway system means squat to average Torontonian. What they want is great city wide rapid transit and to be able to get a seat on a new bus or streetcar than get packed like a sardine in a old rattling bus or streetcar.

It can be safe to say that reducing the headways by 35 seconds would not require an increase in our rolling-stock.

If you were talking about only the Yonge, I would agree with you. However, the Yonge cannot be taken in isolation, it must be taken with the Uni-Spadina line at the same time, whose length increase would probably result in more rolling stock, unless the plan is to have a long gap between the end of the line and the restarting of the pattern, so to speak. Also, the reduction, if 40 percent at rush hour as Moscoe implies, is closer to 50 seconds.

Concerning dwell times, can one say that if the headways were reduced to 1:12 that dwell times would also be reduced because there is less time for the passengers to accumulate on the platform.
In theory, yes, but that actually won't apply as effectively to transfer stations, and it is at transfer stations that one can expect the domino delay effect to occur, because you have (hypothetically) half-train loads full of people getting off one train and onto another at different platforms. These are large volumes, and take time for both detraining and boarding, especially since people don't like spreading out on the platform and using all doors on the train - they only use the doors close to the stairs, and this causes problems with dwell times, because people are stupid.

All night service may be comming in the next decade regardless of this purchase of a computer driven system. What Mr. Moscoe is trying to say is that this can't happen because unlike other cities with 24 hour subway services, we only have 1 track in each direction in nearly all places in the system. Track repairs cannot be executed on an active line, and that this system would solve this large barrier in the TTC running all night service.
It is not the only solution though, the plan was to bring the rest of the system upto Sheppard's standards. My argument was that all night service does not require the computer driven system. Moscoe seems to think differently, which is weird, since he should know (but isn't acting like it).

What would be the point of giving this to the BD line when headways arent at maximum during off-peak hours. They can just run more driven trains if they wanted to increase capacity.
Well, headways aren't at max on the Yonge during off peak hours either, so the same argument goes for Yonge. Since with Yonge the Uni-Spad. gets included, overall with all 3 lines as an average ridership during off-peak hours, don't get as much use as the overall average of the BD, meaning more off-peak demand, although less peak demand, and therefore more deserving of a system that would benefit off-peak operations.

If you were talking about only the Yonge, I would agree with you. However, the Yonge cannot be taken in isolation, it must be taken with the Uni-Spadina line at the same time, whose length increase would probably result in more rolling stock, unless the plan is to have a long gap between the end of the line and the restarting of the pattern, so to speak. Also, the reduction, if 40 percent at rush hour as Moscoe implies, is closer to 50 seconds.

Ah, didn't take that into account.


In theory, yes, but that actually won't apply as effectively to transfer stations, and it is at transfer stations that one can expect the domino delay effect to occur, because you have (hypothetically) half-train loads full of people getting off one train and onto another at different platforms. These are large volumes, and take time for both detraining and boarding, especially since people don't like spreading out on the platform and using all doors on the train - they only use the doors close to the stairs, and this causes problems with dwell times, because people are stupid.
The bigger question is why are so many people transfering to go such a short distance. lol, the past is the past and I wont get into Bloor versus Queen. :D


It is not the only solution though, the plan was to bring the rest of the system upto Sheppard's standards. My argument was that all night service does not require the computer driven system. Moscoe seems to think differently, which is weird, since he should know (but isn't acting like it).

Well, headways aren't at max on the Yonge during off peak hours either, so the same argument goes for Yonge. Since with Yonge the Uni-Spad. gets included, overall with all 3 lines as an average ridership during off-peak hours, don't get as much use as the overall average of the BD, meaning more off-peak demand, although less peak demand, and therefore more deserving of a system that would benefit off-peak operations.

Sorry, I made a mistake while posting, I actually meant to say...

What would be the point of giving this to the BD line when headways arent at maximum during rush hour. They can just run more driven trains if they wanted to increase capacity.

I don't like the idea of it. What if you ended up with...

http://www.thinkingchips.com/Hal9000.jpg

....as your driver? "Daisy..."

I don't like the idea of it. What if you ended up with...

http://www.thinkingchips.com/Hal9000.jpg

....as your driver? "Daisy..."

I wish we have that kind of technology! Don't forget HAL was actually nice until they tried to shut him down! :)

^^ OMG I thought I was the only one who watched that show! :D

Can the stations handle the increased passenger flow at shorter intervals?

Can the stations handle the increased passenger flow at shorter intervals?


Well, assuming that the increased service is greater than any ridership increase it may attract, it should reduce the passenger load...or I should say, spread it out more. So it will actually reduce the average size of the crowds in the station at any given time during rush hours, as well as the number of people on the trains themselves. Less people on the trains and platforms will also reduce the dwell times.






KGB

the good thing about getting Sally Silicone to drive the trains as well as give announcements for Bell Canada, is that is someone flings themselves out in front of a train to commit suicide, Sally wouldn't get one bit depressed or upset about it!

the good thing about getting Sally Silicone to drive the trains as well as give announcements for Bell Canada, is that is someone flings themselves out in front of a train to commit suicide, Sally wouldn't get one bit depressed or upset about it!

That's actually a good point. It happens about once a month or so on the TTC subway, I've heard. We've all been held up by it before. I haven't witnessed the event but both my parents have (Dad witnessed from the platform, Mom's witnessed from the front car). Surely must be the worst part of the job. It happens a lot more frequently in my current neck of the woods, too. It is always a traumatic event for the drivers - it doesn't end when they stop the train either, the worst part is when they get out to try and see if they can keep the victim alive until the medics come... if they're in one piece.

wait if the trains will be driven by computers wont all the drivers lose their jobs? I am surprised unions dont oppose this move.

^^ Moscoe said they'd have extra staff, but the staff would form a Station commitees, they would run each station alongside the neighbourhood that the station is in.

What good is this if your trip to the subway takes forever due to poor service levels and when it arrives you are soaking wet due to lack of shelters and the bus is packed and is a real crate or worse yet it bypasses you becuase its already packed by the time it reaches you.
What good is thid if you can't even get to the subway because you are mobility impaired and so you can't get on one of the 25 year old streetcars.
That kind of huge funds would be far better spent elsewhere.

Perhaps they should explore the idea of installing PSDs withint the busiest stations. That would boast capacity load on the platforms.

Also, stations should be reconfigured so passengers do not end up travelling in a mess of directions during busy rush-hours. Crowd control is practically none-existant on the TTC.

That kind of huge funds would be far better spent elsewhere.

Everything needed to install automated driving needs to be, and is currently scheduled to be replaced.

This isn't a new idea, Moscoe is just talking about bumping up the timeline to 2010 instead of the currently scheduled 2016. It has been a work in progress since the '95 Russel Hill accident.

The accident was caused primarily by antiquated equipment that relies too heavily on humans to be paying attention. Sheppard apparently has most of the bits necessary except the old T1 trains don't have the right computer parts. The new T2 trains probably will (I don't know for sure, but they probably do).

^ like I said earlier, I think it is a good idea but I think that the TTC has higher priorities first of which should be the entire streetcar replacement.
They are already or near their life expendency and they have to be replaced as soon as possible due to their lack of wheelchair access.
The very first set should go to the Spadina ROW.

Also, stations should be reconfigured so passengers do not end up travelling in a mess of directions during busy rush-hours. Crowd control is practically none-existant on the TTC.

The TTC is not alone on this. Unfortunately, the TTC would have a hard time fixing this problem. The stations were never designed to take this load, well, except for the Sheppard. Problems on the southern end of Yonge include stairways much too narrow, for example (and with existing foundations nearby, widening stairways may be impossible). Crowd control is part of the problem, but so is the wiggle room for said control. The wiggle room isn't always sufficient.

^ like I said earlier, I think it is a good idea but I think that the TTC has higher priorities first of which should be the entire streetcar replacement.
They are already or near their life expendency and they have to be replaced as soon as possible due to their lack of wheelchair access.
The very first set should go to the Spadina ROW.

A system will fail if its backbone fails. Parts of the subway fleet are as old or older than the streetcars.

^^ hmmm... I think they should go to St. Clair West first. But Spadina isn't a bad option.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOtwWBkFAPI

It's amazing how closely they can fit trains together. These Vancouver SkyTrains are 10-15 seconds apart. :o

And just how often would ridership levels justify 10-15 second headways in Vancouver? A lot of pretty empty trains running around.






KGB

And just how often would ridership levels justify 10-15 second headways in Vancouver? A lot of pretty empty trains running around.






KGB

I'm justing using the example of how close the trains can be kept apart from eachother.

That train is actually out of service.

For this kind of money they could be good alternative rapid transit LRT which would releave traffic on both lines.

And just how often would ridership levels justify 10-15 second headways in Vancouver? A lot of pretty empty trains running around.






KGB

:lol:

The TTC is not alone on this. Unfortunately, the TTC would have a hard time fixing this problem. The stations were never designed to take this load, well, except for the Sheppard. Problems on the southern end of Yonge include stairways much too narrow, for example (and with existing foundations nearby, widening stairways may be impossible). Crowd control is part of the problem, but so is the wiggle room for said control. The wiggle room isn't always sufficient.

Unfortunate, but true. Too bad the construction of new downtown subway relief lines is nothing more than a pipedream. I wonder how the TTC would have fared today if it was shaped like the multi-branching Montreal network instead.

The problem began when The TTC pushed for a Bloor Subway instead of The flying U proposal. Which would run south to Queen just east of the Gardiner. So the result is 90% of the people during rush hour, transferring trains to travel less than 2km.

I'm justing using the example of how close the trains can be kept apart from eachother.

yabutnobutyabutnobutyabut...what good is it if it can't be useful in the "real world" ???

I have an idea...why not just have one giant train that takes up the entire track length of the entire system, that just goes round and round and stops long enough for people to get on or off, like a merry-go-round?





I wonder how the TTC would have fared today if it was shaped like the multi-branching Montreal network instead.


Actually, I think the "straight line" approach by the TTC is better in the long run (no pun intended). The Grid System works as well for PT as it does for roads.

That said, we definetely need to add the the "Grid". We need a eastern relif line badly...at the very least running south from Sherbourne Station.




KGB

The grid system has worked well for Toronto and remember the city's geographys are completly different.
Montreal ia an island and has to negotiate around Mt.Royal.
Toronto is relativly flat and all the roads are straight and cross the city unlike Montreal.
Toronto's system also includes high-capacity streetcars while Montreal's bus sytem is pretty bad.

while Montreal's bus sytem is pretty bad.

Um... Montreal's bus system is actually quite good ( at least that's what I hear from friends on West Island and South Shore), hence why streetcars aren't a necessity yet for PT. Their commuter train network also compliments metro quite well.