B.12 Preliminary System Operations Plan - Mississauga

Transcription

Appendix B.12 Preliminary System Operations Plan HURONTARIO-MAIN LRT PROJECT
Preliminary Design/TPAP
Preliminary System Operations Plan
June 2014
508956‐2211‐4TRA‐0001
Preliminary System Operations Plan 508956‐2211‐4TRA‐0001‐1.2 12 October 2012 HURONTARIO-MAIN LRT PROJECT
Preliminary Design/TPAP
PRELIMINARY SYSTEM OPERATIONS PLAN
VERSION 1. 2
OCTOBER, 2012
CONTENTS
GLOSSARY/ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... I
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................III
1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................ 1
The Hurontario/Main LRT (HMLRT) Project ......................................................... 2
Guiding Principles ........................................................................................ 2
The HMLRT Route ........................................................................................ 4
Alignment Designs ....................................................................................... 6
Transit Integration ....................................................................................... 6
2
SERVICE SPECIFICATION................................................................................ 9
LRT Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 9
Stops and Termini ....................................................................................... 10
Traffic Signal Priority .................................................................................. 13
Maximum Permitted Speeds ........................................................................... 14
Intermediate Reversing Facilities .................................................................... 15
Connection to Queen Street LRT ..................................................................... 17
Outline Light Rail Vehicle Specification ............................................................ 17
Vehicle Capacity ........................................................................................ 19
Peak Service Level and Line Capacity ............................................................... 21
Service Patterns ......................................................................................... 25
Interlining with Queen Street LRT ................................................................... 36
3
LRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 39
General Principles ...................................................................................... 39
Run Times ................................................................................................ 39
Layover Times ........................................................................................... 44
Cycle Times and Fleet Sizes ........................................................................... 45
Maintenance and Storage Facility .................................................................... 47
Traction Power Supply ................................................................................. 49
Bus Substitution ......................................................................................... 49
4
SERVICE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY OPERATING STATISTICS .................................... 51
Contents
General ................................................................................................... 51
Service Plan .............................................................................................. 51
Preliminary Operating Statistics ..................................................................... 53
FIGURES
Figure 1.1
The Hurontario/Main LRT Route ................................................5
Figure 2.1
Configuration of Typical 30-Metre LRV ...................................... 18
Figure 2.2
Corridor Master Plan line Loadings (2031) Compared with Capacity ... 23
Figure 2.3
Illustration of Two-route Scheduling Difficulties .......................... 25
Figure 2.4
Illustration of Two-route Scheduling Difficulties (5 Minute Headway) 26
Figure 2.5
AM Peak Period LRT Ridership Patterns (2031) from Corridor Master
Plan ................................................................................ 28
Figure 2.6
Downtown Mississauga Box – Functional track Layout .................... 29
Figure 3.1
Examples of LRT Signal Aspects .............................................. 39
TABLES
Table 2.1
Inter-Stop Distances ............................................................ 11
Table 2.2
LRT Vehicle Capacities ......................................................... 20
Table 2.3
Line Capacity..................................................................... 22
Table 2.4
AM Peak Period Ridership Matrix from Corridor Master Plan (2031) ... 27
Table 2.5
Potential Service Options in Downtown Mississauga ...................... 31
Table 3.1
Preliminary Run Time Model Results ......................................... 43
Table 3.2
Preliminary Vehicle Requirement and Fleet Size .......................... 46
Table 3.3
Variation in Fleet Size with Service Option ................................. 47
Table 4.1
Service Plan ...................................................................... 52
Table 4.2
Preliminary Operating Statistics .............................................. 53
Contents
Glossary/Abbreviations
BCA
Benefits Case Analysis
BRT
Bus Rapid Transit
Bunching
The phenomenon where initially regular headways between transit
vehicles become uneven because of variable running times, resulting in
vehicles travelling close together. Also known as ‘platooning’.
Consist
See Set
Crossover
A connection between two parallel tracks enabling a vehicle to cross
from one to the other
Trailing Crossover
A crossover where a vehicle moving in the normal direction of travel
must reverse to cross to the other track:
Scissors Crossover
An overlapping pair of crossovers, typically used at termini to allow
vehicles to access two platforms or trail tracks while minimizing the
length required:
Deadheading
The operation of empty trips between the MSF and the stop where an
LRV enters or leaves revenue service
Delta junction
A three-way junction of LRT routes allowing movements in all
directions, also known as a wye or triangular junction
Downtown box
The LRT route around Downtown Mississauga, composed (in DW1.1) of
two-way alignments on Burnhamthorpe Road, Living Arts Drive, Rathburn
Road and City Centre Drive
DW0, DW1, DW1.1
Design Workbooks 0, 1 and 1.1
GTHA
Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
Interlining
Operation of vehicles from one route to another. In the context of this
report, refers to through trips in service, enabling passengers to travel
from an origin on one route to a destination on the other without a
transfer
HOT
Higher-Order Transit – a generic term for transit systems (rail- or busbased) that operate on their own dedicated rights of way, or on shared
roadways with a high level of priority over general traffic
i
LRT
Light Rail Transit
LRV
Light Rail Vehicle – the smallest unit of operation. Although a vehicle
may consist of a number of articulated sections, these cannot operate
independently
MSF
Maintenance and Storage Facility
pph/bph/vph
Passengers/buses/vehicles per hour, as a measure of flow past a point.
In this report it always applies to a single direction
ppv
Passengers per vehicle
PVR
Peak Vehicle Requirement – the maximum number of vehicles required
to operate a service during the peak periods
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
(The Big Move)
Set
A group (or consist) of LRVs coupled together to operate in service under
the control of one operator
Short Turn
A transit journey where the vehicle does not cover the full length of the
route, either as part of the schedule or in response to service disruption
UGC
Urban Growth Centre
Vehicle
= LRV, for example in “two-vehicle set”
ii
Summary
1.
This report presents a preliminary operating plan for the Hurontario/Main LRT (HMLRT)
project between Port Credit and Downtown Brampton via Downtown Mississauga. It
covers:
I
the guiding principles that inform the design of the system to fulfil its role in
transportation and city-building;
I
the basic operational principles of urban-style LRT;
I
the specification of the LRT service, in relation to the infrastructure and ridership
projections, including service patterns, run times and capacity;
I
initial estimates of fleet requirements and operational parameters.
2.
The wider regional transit network for the future and its relationship to HMLRT are
covered in the Ultimate Transit Network Plan.
3.
The HMLRT system is intended to be a catalyst for development, intensification,
improved quality of life and long-term municipal sustainability. It therefore has an
important ‘city-building’ role in addition to its transportation function.
4.
The approach to this work is founded on a principle of "Putting the Passenger First",
extending beyond the LRT system itself to complementary measures, a 'complete
street' approach and an operating philosophy designed to ensure an attractive
product.
5.
The vision for Hurontario/Main Street is based on increasing urbanisation, and the
design approach matches this by adopting urban-style LRT, combining segregation
from other traffic and traffic signal priority (for fast and reliable journeys) with
highly-accessible, pedestrian-friendly system design.
6.
The currently planned alignment is about 23 kilometres long, with a ‘box’ giving two
routes through Downtown Mississauga and delta junctions to allow flexibility of
routing. The design includes a total of 28 stops, with provision for two additional stops
in future.
7.
The vehicle specification will be finalized at a later stage, but the working assumption
is that articulated light rail vehicles (LRVs) with a length of approximately 30m will be
used.
8.
The peak headway is envisaged as 5 minutes, operated with sets of two LRVs coupled
together. This service plan is designed to meet forecast levels of demand, but the
design incorporates the flexibility to increase capacity using either three-car sets or
longer vehicles.
9.
Journey times between Port Credit and Brampton GO via the two routes through
Downtown Mississauga are estimated as about 45 and 49 minutes respectively, based
on a moderately high degree of signal priority. Ongoing work is focusing on the
development of the traffic signal priority strategy.
iii
10.
It is considered that the original service pattern proposed in the Corridor Master Plan,
with LRVs running alternately via each route through Downtown Mississauga, has
significant operational disadvantages. Several alternative service patterns have
therefore been investigated, and the currently preferred option is based on two
separate services looping back around the Downtown. However, this may be revised
when the results of updated modelling are available.
11.
The estimated minimum fleet size required to operate the service with two-car sets is
53 LRVs for the preferred service option, with small variations for other options. This
would increase to 80 for three-car sets.
iv
1
Introduction
Background
Places to Grow
1.1
Places to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, was created by
the Province of Ontario to guide the growth of the region through 2031. A major
component of this plan is the creation of a multi-modal transportation network to
support the intensification of existing built-up areas and maximize the use of existing
infrastructure in the GGH. The plan designates the Hurontario/Main corridor as a
proposed Higher Order Transit Corridor connecting the two Urban Growth Centres
(UGC) of Downtown Brampton and Downtown Mississauga.
1.2
Centred on the Hurontario/Main Corridor, the UGCs will be focal areas for investment
in public services, accommodate and support major transit infrastructure, and serve as
high density major employment centres. A minimum of 200 residents and jobs
combined per hectare was targeted for these UGCs in Places to Grow, although it is
understood from Metrolinx that this figure may be revised downwards.
The Big Move
1.3
To manage the growth predicted in Places to Grow, Metrolinx created The Big Move
Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in November 2008, which sets out many goals
to improve the state of transportation across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
(GTHA). The most notable of these is the construction of a “comprehensive regional
rapid transit network.” The Big Move recognizes the Hurontario/Main corridor between
Port Credit in Mississauga to Downtown Brampton as a top priority corridor for the
implementation of rapid transit within the next 15 years. Further, it identifies five
Mobility Hubs (identified as key intersections of the regional rapid transit network)
along the corridor to provide access to important local and regional transit
destinations.
City Planning
1.4
Further detail of frameworks for development is provided by the various City planning
processes and documents, including:
I
Mississauga Official Plan
I
Brampton Official Plan
I
Brampton Transportation & Transit Masterplan (to be updated: the current version
is the Sustainable Update 2009 and a new version is planned for 2014)
I
Moving Mississauga (an interim stage towards the production of an updated
Transportation & Transit Masterplan).
1
1.5
All these reinforce the objectives set out in the regional plans, including building
sustainable, liveable communities, intensification of development and the provision of
high quality transit.
The Hurontario/Main LRT (HMLRT) Project
Benefits Case Analysis
1.6
As the rapid transit projects identified in The Big Move progress closer to
implementation, a Benefits Case is prepared for each. The Benefits Case Analysis
(BCA) provides a comparative analysis of feasible options to assist decision makers in
selecting a preferred option for implementation, identifying the preferred project
scope and informing project funding recommendations by the Metrolinx Board.
1.7
The BCA for Hurontario/Main Street was prepared in 2010 and the Multiple Account
Evaluation (MAE) indicated that LRT would generate significant transportation and
wider benefits and contribute towards the achievement of the objectives and goals of
the municipalities and the Province.
Corridor Master Plan
1.8
In 2008, the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton initiated the Hurontario/Main Street
Study to develop a Corridor Master Plan integrating rapid transit, land use and
enhanced urban design for the 21 kilometre corridor between Downtown Brampton in
the north and Port Credit in the south.
1.9
The outcome of this study was the creation of the Hurontario/Main Street Corridor
Master Plan, which sets out a vision for a “unified concept for mobility in the 21st
Century”, which complements and complies with both the Province of Ontario’s Places
to Grow legislation and Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan The Big Move.
1.10
Central to the Hurontario/Main Street Corridor Master Plan was confirmation that LRT
is the preferred form of transit on the corridor. The LRT system as envisaged in the
Master Plan will link the two Urban Growth Centres designated in Places to Grow and
the five Mobility Hubs identified in The Big Move.
Guiding Principles
1.11
The LRT system is intended to be a catalyst for economic development, residential
intensification, improved quality of life and long-term municipal sustainability. It
therefore has an important ‘city-building’ role in addition to its transportation
functions.
Putting the Passenger First
1.12
2
The approach to the design of HMLRT is guided by the principle of "Putting the
Passenger First". People are the link between rapid transit facilities and transitoriented communities where high quality design which considers the 'whole trip'
(information, ticketing, safety, convenience, ease of access, quality of service) leads
to rapid transit, walking and cycling being the easiest way for people to travel.
Consequently, rapid transit becomes a lifestyle choice and the multiple benefits
gained include health, sustainability and efficient transit operation, amongst others.
1.13
The spaces and places through which people, passengers in particular, as well as rapid
transit and other traffic modes move, conduct and enjoy their activities, form the
public realm which provides opportunities to develop integrated linkages and
relationships between rapid transit and its context. The LRT design process therefore
needs to extend beyond the system itself to include complementary measures, a
'complete street' approach and an operating philosophy designed to ensure that people
are happy to use the system rather than simply tolerant of it.
1.14
The principle also extends beyond the LRT route to the wider network, enabling easy
transfers between LRT and other modes, through easy and legible transfer facilities, a
network of routes designed to provide transfer-free trips where possible but otherwise
to make multi-leg journeys easy, and a fares system that is integrated across the
different systems (including municipal and regional services across all modes).
1.15
An integrated solution requires consideration of the design of the LRT not only as an
infrastructure project but also as a working system. The transit network as a whole –
consisting of LRT, BRT, local bus, express bus and regional rail - needs to show the
following characteristics if it is to be attractive to both new and existing users:
1.16
I
Competitive and consistent journey times;
I
Short and predictable waiting times;
I
Punctual departures and arrivals in the case of less frequent, timetabled, services;
I
'Seamless' journeys from origin to destination (making any transfers as simple as
possible by means of physical design, ticketing, security and information);
I
Maximum comfort, safety and security;
I
Affordable fares;
I
Low operating costs (to maximise the service for a given budget); and
I
A high degree of energy efficiency – an objective in itself but also an
encouragement to the ‘responsible consumer’.
A review of ticketing and fare collection technology is being undertaken under a
separate workstream within the Preliminary Design/TPAP project.
Urban-style LRT
1.17
The vision for the Hurontario/Main corridor is based on increasing urbanisation towards a 'beautiful street' and away from the traditional traffic artery designed to
maximize the throughput of automobiles. The implication of this is that an urban-style
approach to LRT design is required, where the infrastructure is of an appropriate form
to complement the existing and future urban fabric. This in turn provides the
opportunity for complementary measures in the rest of the street width, to
accommodate the needs of other street users in a holistic fashion.
1.18
Urban-style LRT differs from the typical North American approach of the 1970s-80s,
which saw the introduction of transit systems, often on existing or disused rail
3
corridors and with underground alignments in downtown areas, that were effective in
moving people, but were not particularly attractive or people-friendly, especially on
at-grade sections through established urban neighbourhoods.
1.19
Competitive and reliable journey times are an essential attribute of any LRT system to
maximise ridership and mode shift and minimize operating costs. A vital part of
achieving these is segregation from other traffic wherever possible, so that LRVs are
not subject to delays and variable journey times. This becomes increasingly important
as travel demand and traffic levels grow. This also extends to intersections, where
traffic signal priority is essential to ensure that delays to LRT are minimized, while
taking account of other road users.
1.20
Waiting times are a key component of any transit journey. A high frequency, so that
passengers do not have to consult a schedule before travelling, is therefore essential.
Since average waiting times increase as services become less regular, a high standard
of reliability, delivered by segregation and signal priority is also important in
minimizing waiting times.
1.21
Urban-style LRT also provides a high level of accessibility, with stops located to serve
specific objectives, and the spacing between them varied according to the density of
demand and local development patterns. Low floor vehicles and low platforms
enable fast, step-free boarding and alighting, while enabling stops to be fully
integrated with the streetscape.
1.22
Facilities for pedestrians (both transit users and others) and cyclists are also an
essential component of urban-style LRT. The ‘open’ design of the LRT alignment,
together with low stop platforms and plentiful crosswalks, serve to maximize local
accessibility and minimize severance.
The HMLRT Route
1.23
4
Figure 1.1 illustrates the HMLRT route. The line starts at Port Credit, close to
Lakeshore Road West, and runs in a nearly straight line north west for 21 kilometres to
Downtown Brampton, serving Cooksville, Downtown Mississauga and Shoppers World en
route.
FIGURE 1.1
THE HURONTARIO/MAIN LRT ROUTE
5
1.24
The basic route is fixed but alternative local routings are being examined at a number
of locations, including:
I
Port Credit, where options for serving the GO station more effectively are being
examined;
I
Downtown Mississauga, where route options were left open to some extent in the
Corridor Master Plan and where the scale and complexity of existing and future
development extending nearly 1.5 km west1 of Hurontario Street warrants specific
attention to routes and service patterns; and
I
Downtown Brampton, where alternatives to the Corridor Master Plan preferred
alignment are under consideration. A possible route via Centennial Park to serve
the redevelopment site at the former Peel Memorial Hospital was also considered
but has now been rejected. In addition, possible connections to a future Queen
Street LRT line need to be taken into account.
Alignment Designs
1.25
The operational planning for this report is based on the Design Workbook 1.1 (DW1.1)
alignment.
1.26
The process commenced with Design Workbook 0 (DW0), which comprised a review of
the Hurontario/Main Street LRT Corridor Master Plan layout, incorporating comments
from the consultant team, the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton and from Metrolinx,
and which was issued in February 2012.
1.27
Design Workbook 1 was produced to address a number of the issues raised in DW0, and
to show the scale of impact of a “maximum segregated LRT” and its implications for
road space, curb lines and property. A series of workshops was held with the Clients to
discuss this first draft alignment, and the current DW1.1 designs emerged from this
process to form the basis of consultation in Public Information Centre 1.
1.28
Some design alternatives, including routes and stop location on the approaches to Port
Credit and Brampton, are being developed outside the Design Workbook process and
are not considered here. However, the Downtown Mississauga routing is an integral
part of the DW1.1 design and therefore consideration of the associated service
patterns is included in this report. At present the detailed alignments in Downtown
Mississauga are still under review, but the basic track configuration is assumed
constant and the choice of route is not expected to have a significant influence on
operational planning.
Transit Integration
1.29
1
LRT will be only one part of a comprehensive transit network for Mississauga,
Brampton and the surrounding area, building on the current bus and rail networks. LRT
planning therefore needs to reflect this wider network in terms of:
Although Hurontario/Main is oriented north west to south east, it is conventionally considered to run north to south
when describing spatial relationships.
6
I
ongoing development of the existing networks, for example Mississauga BRT, the
expansion of Brampton Transit’s Züm BRT network and the introduction of all-day
GO rail services;
I
future patterns of demand, which will drive LRT ridership and transfer volumes;
1.30
This report deals principally with ‘internal’ LRT operational issues, i.e. the operation
of the LRT system itself. The wider transit network, including the relationships
between HMLRT, local bus networks, Higher-Order Transit and regional transit, is
addressed in the Ultimate Transit Network Plan.
1.31
HMLRT intersects several future HOT projects that are currently under development,
including some that may use LRT technology. One such is Queen Street Rapid Transit,
initially implemented as ‘BRT-Lite’ as Brampton Transit Züm route 501 and planned
for upgrading to a dedicated right of way. If any of these emerge as LRT, opportunities
for interlining will need to be considered.
7
2
Service Specification
LRT Infrastructure
2.1
The following is a brief summary of the alignment and stop infrastructure, full details
of which are contained in the Design Workbook 1.1 Report.
2.2
As previously mentioned, the operational planning for this report is based on the
DW1.1 alignment design. At this stage only the alignment itself has been considered in
the design process, and in some locations alternative solutions are being examined.
Later stages of the work will also consider the traffic operations elements of the
project, including signal timings and LRT priority. In the meantime the following basic
system characteristics have been assumed:
2
I
A double track alignment throughout. The single track terminal loop at Brampton in
the Corridor Master Plan is replaced by a two-way alignment via Main Street to a
dead-end stop north of the GO station (in broadly the same location as in the
Master Plan).
I
A double track ‘box’ in Downtown Mississauga, following Burnhamthorpe Road,
Living Arts Drive, Rathburn Road and City Centre Drive, with delta (wye) junctions
at the Hurontario/Burnhamthorpe and Rathburn/City Centre Drive intersections to
allow LRVs to make all movements and hence to maximise routing options.
I
Stops at approximately the same locations as in the Corridor Master Plan, except in
Brampton (consequent on the revised alignment) and at South Service Road where
the stop has been omitted from the current designs. The stop locations have been
reviewed and in some cases stops have been relocated, and some platform layouts
have been reconfigured.
I
The alignment allows for future stops at World Drive and Skyway/Superior.
I
A dedicated LRT alignment over virtually the whole route, so that LRVs will be
completely segregated from general traffic except at intersections. This differs
from proposals in both Downtown21 (which includes mixed traffic running on Living
Arts Drive in Downtown Mississauga) and the Corridor Master Plan designs (which
show mixed traffic operation on around 20% of the route, from Port Credit to QEW
and from Peel Valley Parkway to Brampton). Such forms of operation would make
the LRT susceptible to variable traffic speeds and potential congestion, with
implications for run times and quality of service.
I
A maximum feasible degree of signal priority within the constraints of providing for
all road users including pedestrians, cyclists, LRT, buses, commercial traffic and
automobiles.
I
Design for 30m long double-ended LRVs, operating singly or coupled together as
two- or three-LRV sets. The emerging DW1.1 designs are based on sets of up to
three 30m vehicles2, with 90m platforms throughout. Details of overall HMLRT
The design criteria also allow for an alternative option of 40m vehicles, operating singly or in two-vehicle sets.
9
system capacity will be determined following detailed ridership forecasting and
consideration of a range of land use scenarios. Until that work is complete, the
90m platforms are being safeguarded to “future proof” the project design.
2.3
The Downtown Mississauga track layout provides a high degree of flexibility for
different operating patterns, including both normal services and temporary services
during special events when part of the route may be unavailable.
2.4
Facilities for reversing will be provided at various intermediate points along the route.
These have not been finalised but will need to include the ability to terminate LRVs
short of Downtown Brampton during special events. These are discussed further in
paragraph 2.27 and following.
2.5
Consideration is being given to phasing of the infrastructure. This includes a possible
initial route in Downtown Mississauga using only the south, west and north-sides of the
box, with the east side added later as development proceeds.
Stops and Termini
2.6
10
The current alignment shown in Figure 1.1 includes a total of 28 stops (including
endpoints) with an average spacing of about 900 metres. The inter-stop distances
(stop spacings) are set out in Table 2.1. These have been measured in northbound
direction only for operational purposes, and may not correspond exactly to the
distances between platform centres as shown on alignment design plans. In addition,
some southbound distances will differ because of the use of offset platforms.
TABLE 2.1
INTER-STOP DISTANCES
Distance
From stop
To stop
Elizabeth St
Port Credit GO
via City Centre
Drive
via Living Arts
Drive
Port Credit GO
Mineola Street
845
760
845
760
Mineola Street
N Service Rd
Queensway
Dundas Street
Cooksville GO
Central Pkwy
Matthews Gate
City Centre Drive
Matthews Gate
Main Street
Living Arts Drive
IR Transit Terminal
N Service Rd
Queensway
Dundas Street
Cooksville GO
Central Pkwy
Matthews Gate
City Centre Drive
Rathburn Rd
Main Street
Living Arts Drive
IR Transit Terminal
Rathburn Rd
1295
670
985
420
1000
480
460
510
-
1295
670
985
420
1000
480
770
730
670
370
Rathburn Rd
Eglinton Ave
Bristol Rd
Matheson Blvd
Britannia Rd
Courtneypark Dr
Derry Rd
Hwy 407 P&R
Ray Lawson Blvd
Sir Lou Drive
Shoppers World
Charolais Blvd
Eglinton Ave
Bristol Rd
Matheson Blvd
Britannia Rd
Courtneypark Dr
Derry Rd
Hwy 407 P&R
Ray Lawson Blvd
Sir Lou Drive
Shoppers World
Charolais Blvd
Nanwood Drive
1690*
1140
770
1070
1700
1380
620
1350
470
670
560
1080
1700*
1140
770
1070
1700
1380
620
1350
470
670
560
1080
Nanwood Drive
Queen Street
Queen Street
Brampton GO
1425
325
1425
325
21675
23255
903
894
Total Distance
Average Stop Spacing
* These distances differ slightly because Rathburn Road has separate platforms on
each route
2.7
The distance measurements shown in Table 2.1 run continuously from Port Credit to
Brampton via both routes in Downtown Mississauga. However, as discussed in Chapter
3, the service patterns to be overlaid on this are under review and the final pattern
that emerges may not include through journeys from end to end.
2.8
Opportunities for additional future stops were identified on the Corridor Master Plan
and spatial provision for them is included in the DW1.1 designs. However, these stops
are not included in the designs themselves and have not been assessed in ridership
11
terms, and they are therefore not included in this operational assessment. DW1.1
currently includes provision for stops at:
2.9
I
World Drive (between Britannia Road and Courtneypark Drive);
I
Skyway/Superior (between Courtneypark Drive and Derry Road).
The Corridor Master Plan also includes possible future stops at:
I
Floradale Drive (between Queensway and Dundas Street);
I
Ceremonial (between Eglinton Avenue and Bristol Road);
I
Elgin (between Charolais Boulevard and Nanwood Drive).
2.10
The stop at South Service Road included in the Corridor Master Plan is not included in
the DW1.1 designs.
2.11
A full discussion of the trade-offs between stop spacing and the case for the project is
not included in this Operations Plan. The optimum number and locations of LRT stops
are a function of many factors, including land use, travel patterns, urban design and
traffic engineering, as well as operational efficiency. In operating terms, however, a
balance needs to be struck between the operating speed (the higher the speed, the
lower the in-vehicle travel time and the smaller the fleet size) and stop spacing (the
closer the stops, the shorter the average access time).
2.12
Typically, each stop adds about 35-40 seconds to the journey time per direction, and
hence 70-80 seconds per round trip, depending on the maximum speed on the section
where it is located. This means that for a peak headway of 5 minutes with two-vehicle
sets, each additional stop contributes a marginal 0.5 of an additional vehicle. Clearly
this is a notional increase, since the peak vehicle requirement must be an integer
multiple of two; whether or not extra vehicles are actually required will depend on
the amount of ‘spare’ layover time. However it demonstrates that the effect of
additional stops on fleet size can be significant, adding to both capital and operating
costs.
2.13
Stops are configured either as twin side platforms or an island platform, depending on
the opportunities and constraints at the individual locations. In some cases side
platforms are staggered, generally each side of an intersection. This has several
advantages: a reduced alignment width; space for left turn lanes (if platforms are
located on the downstream side of the intersection); and improved LRT signal priority
(again if platforms are downstream).
2.14
With double-ended LRVs, terminal stops can be configured either as loops or stubs,
depending on the alignment. In the DW1.1 design, both the Port Credit and Brampton
stops are configured as two terminal tracks serving an island platform, with a scissors
crossover on the approach.
2.15
In the case of Brampton, this is a change from the Corridor Master Plan preferred
alignment, which was based on a one-way loop via George Street to a stop on the
north side of the railway, returning via Main Street.
12
2.16
At present, the designs for the termini do not include tail tracks. However, this may
be reviewed as the design process proceeds.
Traffic Signal Priority
2.17
A high level of service reliability requires the LRT system to be insulated as far as
possible from the effects of traffic signal delays, which means a high degree of signal
priority. At the same time the impacts on pedestrian crossing movements, buses and
general traffic (parallel, crossing and turning) also need to be minimized. Because of
the complexity of these competing demands, the optimum degree of signal priority
can only be finally determined by detailed modelling.
2.18
Sophisticated control systems are available to maximise the priority to LRT while
maintaining overall road capacity as far as possible. A typical transit signal priority
(TSP) facility is for approaching LRT vehicles to call a priority phase, or extend the
current phase, to avoid being delayed by the signals (often known as ‘recall and
extend’ priority). Any green time taken from another traffic stream as a result of the
priority call can then generally be restored (or ‘compensated’) in the next signal cycle
to maintain capacity. However, as the LRT service frequency increases, particularly
where LRT is running in both directions through an intersection, opportunities to
compensate other traffic phases decrease.
2.19
Where a stop is immediately before a signal, it is possible to call the phase when the
vehicle arrives at the stop so that the signals change as the vehicle is ready to depart.
However, the locating of a stop immediately before a stopline is generally to be
avoided, as variable LRV dwell times at the stop result in difficulties in guaranteeing
LRT priority. Operationally, LRT stops are better located downstream of an
intersection, as any variation in dwell time at the stop does not impact on intersection
operation – in addition, this arrangement (usually) co-ordinates better with passengers
alighting the LRV and then receiving crosswalk priority ‘Walk’ at the back of the
platform, as the succeeding non-LRT signal phase will be ready to operate. When two
signal intersections are close together, they are normally linked so that once a vehicle
has been given a green phase at the first intersection, it has a clear run through the
second, although an LRT stop between the two intersections can further complicate
intersection and LRT priority operation.
2.20
Because of the complexity of the signal phases at some intersections, it is not always
possible to give absolute priority to every LRT vehicle, depending in part on the point
in the cycle at which it arrives. In particular, if another LRT vehicle has recently
passed in the opposite direction (or even in the same direction) the system may
already be compensating other traffic streams and may not be able to respond to a
new priority request immediately, especially if conflicting pedestrian crosswalk
distances (and therefore signal phase lengths) are significant.
2.21
As above, the ease of achieving a high level of signal priority decreases as the
frequency of the LRT service increases, but also as the concentration of intersections
increases. Consequently, in networks with a high intersection intensity, it is
13
sometimes more efficient for LRVs to be delayed for a few additional seconds at a
stop, before being released at such time as LRT priority can be guaranteed for the
next set of intersections – in this way, signal offsets between intersections can be
better set to reduce delays for LRVs in both directions, and maintain a satisfactory
level of service for general traffic.
2.22
Signal priority is also affected by time taken for an LRV or set of LRVs to clear the
intersection. This may be significant, and is greater where LRVs operate in multiple
and where the speed is restricted by track curvature. As an example, a 90m set
starting from rest and curving through an intersection at a maximum of 30 km/h would
take around 20-25 seconds for the rear of the set to clear the intersection. This may
make it difficult to compensate for a LRV priority call in the next cycle.
2.23
Microsimulation modelling using VISSIM will be used to assess the operation of the
corridor taking full account of signal timings, intersection layouts, traffic flows
(including detailed bus routings) and LRV set lengths. In the meantime, some
assumptions on signal delays have been incorporated in preliminary LRT run time
modelling, as described in Chapter 3.
Maximum Permitted Speeds
2.24
It has been assumed that the LRT system will be subject to the same maximum speeds
as general traffic where it operates within the road right of way, even where it is
segregated. From observation the existing signed maximum speeds are:
Hurontario/Main Street:
I
50 km/h from Port Credit to Fairview Road
I
60 km/h from Fairview Road to Courtneypark Drive (direct via Hurontario Street)
I
80 km/h from Courtneypark Drive to Ray Lawson Blvd
I
60 km/h from Ray Lawson Blvd to north of Nanwood Drive
I
50 km/h from north of Nanwood Drive to Brampton
Downtown Mississauga Box:
2.25
14
I
60 km/h on Burnhamthorpe Road and Living Arts Drive
I
50 km/h on Rathburn Road
In future these are assumed to remain the same except in Downtown Mississauga,
where the transformation to an urban street environment is likely to result in a lower
limit being adopted. In run time modelling, a maximum of 50 km/h has therefore been
assumed on Burnhamthorpe Road and Living Arts Drive. With increasing urbanization,
part of the 80km/h section may also be the subject of a lower limit in future, but the
extent of this cannot be determined at this stage. As an indication of the sensitivity of
run time to this speed, if the whole 80km/h section were to be reduced to 60km/h,
the effect on run time would be around 20 seconds.
2.26
There may be sections elsewhere in the corridor where a LRT speed higher than the
traffic limit is possible, but unless such a higher speed can be sustained over a
significant distance, the reductions in overall run time are not significant.
Intermediate Reversing Facilities
2.27
While it is currently envisaged that the HMLRT service will not include short turns,
except perhaps as part of operating the Downtown Mississauga box (see 2.73),
facilities for turning back LRVs at intermediate points will also be required. The
reasons for this are:
I
to provide for scheduled short turn workings at certain times, particularly at the
start and end of the operating day or at transitions between time periods with
different service levels;
I
to allow services to be maintained over part of the route during disruption
affecting a local area - either planned maintenance or caused by incidents such as
equipment failure, road accidents etc.;
I
to allow a disabled vehicle to be returned to the Maintenance and Storage Facility
(MSF) by the shortest practical route.
2.28
The locations of reversing facilities have not yet been identified and will be
determined as part of the Preliminary Engineering process. Where possible (and
subject to site constraints), they should be located to enable the service to terminate
at a demand generator or transfer point, so the passengers can easily transfer to other
services, including temporary replacement buses where appropriate.
2.29
At present it is envisaged that trailing crossovers will form the majority of
intermediate reversing facilities. The Preliminary Engineering process may also
identify locations where pocket tracks would be advantageous, enabling an out-ofservice vehicle or set to be parked until it could be returned to the MSF, but such
facilities do not form part of the current plans.
2.30
LRVs passing over crossovers may generate increased noise, even when not crossing
between tracks, and the selection of locations at a local level will therefore need to
take account of the sensitivity of the surrounding area, particularly at night.
2.31
The following is a provisional list of locations where crossovers could be provided,
giving a comprehensive range of opportunities for terminating journeys or services:
I
south of Wellington Street (see below)
I
Shoppers World
I
Derry Road
I
Matheson Blvd
I
north of Rathburn Road
I
south of Burnhamthorpe Road
I
Dundas Street
I
Port Credit GO
15
2.32
In addition, if the Downtown Mississauga box is constructed with a comprehensive
track layout, LRVs will be able to reverse their direction by looping around the box,
without a physical reversal. The crossovers north of Rathburn Road and south of
Burnhamthorpe Road will provide additional flexibility to turn LRVs short of the
Downtown area if the loop is not available.
2.33
The selection of reversing locations will also be influenced by the location of the MSF,
which will automatically provide an opportunity for reversal, albeit with a small time
penalty for entering and leaving the facility.
Downtown Brampton
2.34
At Brampton, a crossover is desirable south of Wellington Street to allow northbound
LRVs to reverse if the Downtown area is blocked by a planned event such as the
weekly Farmers’ Market or in an emergency. However, this will be practicable only if
facilities can be provided for loading and unloading passengers. The issue is closely
related to the emerging design options for Brampton, and the operating plan will be
reviewed as part of the selection of a preferred layout. The final layout and operating
plan will also need to take account of wider issues including planning for special
events and the long term development of Downtown Brampton as an Urban Growth
Centre.
2.35
When the LRT service is reversing south of Wellington Street, many people will still be
able to walk to their final destination. However, some arrangements will need to be
made for people who are unwilling or unable to walk, particularly those who are
travelling to or from the GO station and adjacent bus facilities. Under the strategy for
complementary bus services in the HMLRT corridor, which is set out in the Ultimate
Transit Network Plan, it is proposed that no local bus services will operate on Main
Street South, so there will be no opportunity to transfer at Wellington Street unless
additional provision is made.
2.36
One option would be simply to advise people to transfer at Shoppers World, where
through buses to Brampton GO will be available via parallel routes. However, these
routes will be indirect and less frequent than the LRT, and this option would require
northbound passengers to make the decision to alight early.
2.37
Alternatively, a special shuttle bus service could be provided at the times when the
LRT service was short turning. The details of this would depend on the LRT alignment
design, and specifically the stop locations, and both the routing and stop locations
would need to be carefully planned to avoid causing delay to traffic flows already
subject to diversions, while minimizing the inconvenience to passengers transferring.
One option, depending on the level of demand for the shuttle, would be to use small
vehicles to minimize traffic impacts and give more flexibility in stop locations. While
Brampton Transit does not have such vehicles in its current roster, it is possible that
vehicles could be provided by Peel region from its accessible transportation fleet.
16
Connection to Queen Street LRT
2.38
Queen Street Rapid Transit is a 15-year Plan project in the RTP, running eastwards
from Downtown Brampton, upgrading the existing Züm 501 BRT route with dedicated
bus transit lanes and possible conversion to LRT. If the latter comes about, there is
the potential for synergies with HMLRT, in functional matters such as joint fleet
management and/or in the provision of interlined passenger services.
2.39
The full Queen Street corridor extends to York University, and interlining HMLRT with
such a long corridor (up to 30 km) would not be recommended, because of the
potential for delays to propagate from one corridor to the other and the difficulty of
operating such a long service reliably. However, it is understood that, if LRT is
implemented on Queen Street, it is likely to extend no further east than Bramalea,
the rest of the route remaining as BRT for the long term. The distance from Brampton
to Bramalea is about 5 km, which would be a reasonable length to interline with
HMLRT. Service options for interlined services between HMLRT and QSLRT are
discussed later in this chapter (paragraph 2.106 and following).
2.40
The area around Brampton GO station is identified as an Anchor Mobility Hub in the
RTP, and the basic option would be for both LRT lines to terminate there. This in turn
suggests two possible route options for the QSLRT in Brampton:
I
The route enters Downtown Brampton on Queen Street East, and then runs over the
HMLRT route along Main Street to the proposed terminus north of the GO station.
I
The Queen Street line takes an alternative route into Downtown Brampton but
shares the HMLRT terminus.
2.41
The first option would require a new track connection at the constrained Queen/Main
intersection, and would increase the level of LRT operations in Main Street through
Downtown.
2.42
An alternative route, diverging from Queen Street to run along the north side of the
railway to the GO station, is already under consideration by the City of Brampton. This
would avoid having an LRT junction at the Queen/Main intersection. While this would
mean that Queen Street LRVs would not serve a stop in Main Street, interlining would
allow passengers to remain on the vehicle during the short reversal at the GO station.
2.43
Both options would both increase the number of LRT services reversing in the
Brampton terminus. The capacity of the terminus to accommodate this would need to
be verified, but would probably be sufficient for the short reversing times required for
interlined services (as compared with the longer times required for two independent
terminating services). If required, however, the currently proposed layout between
the GO Rail line and a condominium block appears capable of accommodating three
platforms.
Outline Light Rail Vehicle Specification
2.44
This Operations Plan does not deal with a detailed specification for the HMLRT
vehicle, which will form part of the System Specification. However, the following
17
section sets out the typical characteristics of a generic LRV suitable for urban-style
LRT.
2.45
2.46
LRVs are available in various dimensions and configurations, from a range of
manufacturers. All are constructed in sections or modules, with articulations between
the modules enabling them to negotiate the curve radii normally found in urban areas.
Typical characteristics are as follows:
I
Length:
30 – 45 m
I
Width:
2.3 - 2.65 m
I
Number of modules:
3-7
I
Weight:
40 – 70 tonnes
I
Maximum speed:
70 – 80 km/h
I
Maximum grade:
6–8%
I
Minimum horizontal radius: 25 m (running lines), 20 m (in MSF)
I
Multiple unit operation:
typically up to 3 or 4 vehicles
I
Boarding height:
300 – 350 mm above top of rail/paved surface
I
Doors per side:
4–6
I
Seats:
50 – 90 (see discussion below)
I
Total capacity:
200 - 250 (see discussion below)
I
Seat arrangement:
2+1 or 2+2 (number of seats each side of gangway)
I
Vehicle life:
30 years
I
Capital cost:
$4 to $7 m
A typical vehicle, the Bombardier Flexity Freedom, is illustrated in profile and plan in
Figure 2.1. Like modern LRVs from all manufacturers, this is available in various
configurations. The version illustrated is 30.8 m long, formed of five modules, and the
floor plan shows 64 fixed seats plus six tip-up seats and two wheelchair areas.
However, the interior configuration is flexible and the optimum balance between
seating, standing, wheelchair and cycle accommodation will be examined as part of
the System Specification.
FIGURE 2.1
CONFIGURATION OF TYPICAL 30-METRE LRV
Source: Bombardier publicity
18
2.47
Vehicles of a similar configuration are available from several manufacturers, and the
final choice will be made on the basis of a full technical and financial assessment,
including alternative methods of procurement.
Vehicle Capacity
2.48
The capacity of an LRV is dependent not only on its dimensions but also on the seating
layout, and there is a considerable amount of flexibility in the ratio of seating to
standing room within the usable space. The greatest overall capacity is obtained by
maximizing standing room, but this inevitably increases the proportion of passengers
who have to stand, and may lead to people being unable to find a seat even at less
busy times. Conversely, providing a larger number of seats will reduce total capacity
and may lead to passengers being left behind at stops. In a high quality system, a
balance has therefore to be struck between providing sufficient seats for off-peak
travel (when, typically, there is a higher proportion of ‘choice’ riders for whom finding
a seat may be more important) and providing enough total capacity in the peaks.
2.49
In practice, different transit agencies specify different vehicle configurations, so that
capacities vary between different fleets of otherwise similar vehicles. Typically,
however, a 30 metre long low floor LRV can be expected to have between 50 and 70
seats, and accommodate around 200 passengers in total at normal (tolerable) standing
densities.
2.50
Practical assumptions on density and capacity for the assessment of line capacity for
HMLRT are discussed further in the paragraphs below.
2.51
One of the key advantages of LRT over bus-based systems is its higher vehicle
capacity, which can be further increased by coupling vehicles together. Multiple
operation enables line capacity to be doubled or tripled while minimising the cost of
operation (since only one operator is required) and making best use of traffic signal
priority. However, allowance must be made for the additional intersection clearance
time required for longer sets.
2.52
There is a choice to be made between operating a given headway with single vehicles
or a wider headway with two-vehicle sets. This choice is influenced by:
3
I
operating costs, which will be lower for two-vehicle sets because fewer operators
are required;
I
passenger waiting times, which will be shorter for single LRVs at closer headways,
with beneficial effects on ridership; and
I
(if set lengths are adjusted during the operating day) operating convenience,
because of the complexity of coupling and uncoupling 3 sets while in service, with
possible consequent costs for extra operators and deadhead mileage.
a process also known as adding and cutting
19
Practical Vehicle Capacity
2.53
One of the key parameters for operational analysis is line capacity – the number of
passengers that the system can carry past a point, normally in a peak hour. In its
simplest terms, line capacity (passengers per hour) is the product of the service
frequency (vehicles per hour) and the vehicle capacity (passengers per vehicle).
2.54
In practice it is generally not possible to load every vehicle in an hour to its maximum
capacity, because of short-term ‘spikes’ or variations in demand, slight irregularities
in headway, uneven distributions of passengers within vehicles/sets etc. For planning
purposes it is advisable, therefore, to assume an average passenger loading per
vehicle that is less than individual vehicle capacity, to represent the average number
of passengers per vehicle that can be sustained over a period without adverse effects
on the quality of service (i.e. fully loaded LRVs leaving passengers behind at stops,
and/or uncomfortable levels of crowding).
2.55
A basis for assessing practical capacity is provided by data supplied by TTC for the
Sheppard-Finch Benefits Case Analysis for Metrolinx, but also compatible with the
assumptions used for other LRT projects in the Toronto area. The data includes
detailed information on standing capacities at specified densities for a vehicle of
approximately 30m length, similar to that envisaged for HMLRT. Table 2.2 shows the
capacities of such a vehicle for four cases:
2.56
I
all seats occupied, with no standing passengers
I
W-4A loading: 4.67 passengers per sq m (equivalent to 2.3 sq ft per passenger)
I
W-5 loading: 7.14 passengers per sq m (equivalent to 1.5 sq ft per passenger)
I
Peak load standard: all seats occupied plus 75% of the W-4A standing load
The subsequent paragraphs provide further explanation.
TABLE 2.2
LRT VEHICLE CAPACITIES
Persons
standing
per m2
Seated
capacity
Standing
capacity
Total
capacity
All seats occupied, no
standing
N/A
66
0
66
W-4A loading (capacity)
4.67
66
128
194
W-5 loading (crush)
7.14
66
196
262
Peak load standard
2.34
66
96
162*
Loading criterion
* Rounded to 160 for service planning analysis in current work
Source: TTC/Metrolinx
20
2.57
W-4A and W-5 are standard measures for assessing standing density and the resulting
vehicle capacity. W-4A represents the normal loading at the maximum density that
can comfortably be achieved in normal circumstances. W-5 is an extreme or ‘crush’
loading that is uncomfortable for passengers and is not normally planned for, but may
be tolerated on an occasional basis – e.g. when clearing large crowds after a sporting
event, or in adverse weather when the entire transportation system (including both
auto and transit) is under exceptional stress.
2.58
The capacity figure of 194 for normal standing density is very similar to the figure of
200 that is typical for 30m LRVs. The TTC/Metrolinx data therefore represents a
reasonable basis for defining the capacity of HMLRT vehicles.
2.59
A peak load standard of 160 passengers per vehicle, calculated as seating capacity plus
75% of the W-4A standing capacity and rounded, has been adopted as a planning
standard for estimating the line capacity sustainable over a full hour and therefore
suitable for comparison with peak hour ridership forecasts.
Peak Service Level and Line Capacity
2.60
The service plan proposed in the Corridor Master Plan (Option 8) is for a peak headway
equivalent to one 30m LRV every 2.5 minutes on the main body of the corridor. It is
acknowledged in the Master Plan report that operationally it would be preferable to
run these as coupled pairs every 5 minutes to avoid ‘bunching’ caused by signal
phasings, and this has been adopted as a central assumption.
2.61
However, other options are possible, including alternative frequencies and the use of
three-vehicle sets. Table 2.3 shows the capacities that are possible under a range of
assumptions for service frequency and set length. It also includes theoretical
capacities achievable for short periods under exceptional circumstances, based on
higher average loads than the adopted peak load standard.
2.62
The operation of traffic signal phasing imposes some limitations on the number of LRT
movements that can be handled without causing ‘bunching’, because of the need to
serve conflicting traffic movements and pedestrian crosswalks within a reasonable
window, and to maintain co-ordination between adjacent traffic signal intersections.
Based on the existing cycle times in the Hurontario/Main corridor, it is considered that
the minimum practicable LRT headway is about 4 minutes (for most of the corridor,
this equates to an average of one LRV to be served in every complete signal cycle),
and this is adopted as a limit in Table 2.3.
21
TABLE 2.3
LINE CAPACITY
Line Capacity pph (per direction) at:
Set
length
(LRVs
per Set)
1
2
3
*
2.63
Schedule
Frequency
(Sets per
hour)
Service
Level
(LRVs per
hour)
All
Seated
Planning
Capacity*
Maximum
Capacity*
Crush
Capacity*
(66 ppv)
Peak Load
Standard
(160 ppv)
W-4A
Loading
(194 ppv)
W-5
Loading
(262 ppv)
6
10
10
660
1,600
1,940
2,620
5
12
12
792
1,920
2,328
3,144
4
15
15
990
2,400
2,910
3,930
6
10
20
1,320
3,200
3,880
5,240
5
12
24
1,584
3,840
4,656
6,288
4
15
30
1,980
4,800
5,820
7,860
6
10
30
1,980
4,800
5,820
7,860
5
12
36
2,376
5,760
6,984
9,432
4
15
45
2,970
7,200
8,730
11,790
Schedule
Headway
(minutes)
Planning Capacity: sustainable over an hour in normal operation
Maximum Capacity: sustainable over short periods with all vehicles fully loaded at normal standing density
Crush Capacity: sustainable over short periods with all vehicles fully loaded at exceptional standing density
As discussed earlier, the higher capacity figures (maximum and crush), which assume
all vehicles are fully loaded, are not suitable for the assessment of hourly line
capacity. Hence the line capacities for these densities should be regarded as nominal.
Line Loadings
2.64
22
The results of updated demand modelling are not yet available, and the ridership
forecasts from the Corridor Master Plan have therefore been used as the basis for an
initial assessment of loadings against capacity. The flows from Master Plan Appendix
3B Figure 13 (2031 AM peak hour, high growth scenario) are plotted in Figure 2.2, with
the seated, peak load standard and W-4A capacities as defined above.
FIGURE 2.2
CAPACITY
Sources:
CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN LINE LOADINGS (2031) COMPARED WITH
Line Loadings: HMLRT Corridor Master Plan Appendix 3B Figure 13
(Note: loadings do not include section south of Port Credit GO)
Capacities: SDG estimates based on TTC/Metrolinx data
23
2.65
These plots indicate that the 2031 Corridor Master Plan loadings are well within the
adopted peak load standard except for one link north of Dundas Street, which is very
slightly higher. Based on the Corridor Master Plan forecasts, therefore, the service
level of 24 LRVs per hour appears well suited to long term demand. However, this
conclusion may change in the light of work currently under way to prepare ridership
forecasts based on alternative land use scenarios.
2.66
The peak loadings show that for the 2-car sets of 30m vehicles at 5-minute headways,
a significant proportion of passengers would have to stand in peak periods. The nature
of the southbound demand in particular, with sustained high flows over a large part of
the route, would mean that standing times would also be considerable. Other service
options, such as 3-car sets or 40m vehicles, would offer opportunities to reduce both
the proportion of standing passengers and the length of time for which standing is
required.
2.67
It is worth noting that to meet the expected growth in travel demand cost-effectively
with increased bus services would also require a higher proportion of passengers to
stand compared with the current bus services. However, the higher quality of ride
offered by LRT enables a higher proportion of standing passengers to be
accommodated at acceptable comfort levels.
2.68
No information on off-peak ridership levels are available at present, but these would
be expected to be lower and a higher proportion of riders would be able to obtain a
seat.
2.69
In intermediate years a lower service level may be appropriate as demand builds up,
and the frequency (and perhaps the fleet size) will need to be increased to minimize
costs.
2.70
The Corridor Master Plan forecast loadings exhibit a rather unusual profile along the
route, which will need to be confirmed in the modeling update. In particular, the flow
in the southbound direction is sustained at a high level throughout most of the route.
This is rather different from the profile more commonly found in urban transit
systems, where loadings build up gradually towards a central point (and then decline
again in the case of ‘crosstown’ routes). The unusual profile may be a reflection of
complex ridership patterns influenced by several centres along the LRT route, plus the
influence of Toronto as a trip attractor via transfers to GO regional services.
2.71
It is possible that land use changes, particularly those envisaged for Downtown
Mississauga under Downtown21, may result in even higher ridership forecasts than the
high growth scenario used in the Corridor Master Plan work. Additional ridership is also
likely to arise from the development of Mobility Hubs and their associated transit
links, which will improve the connectivity between the Hurontario/Main corridor and
the rest of the GTHA. The option to run 3-vehicle coupled sets 90m in length, as being
explored in DW1.1, would give flexibility to accommodate such increases without
reducing headways below 5 minutes, and would provide the project with additional
‘future-proofing’. Alternatively, the use of 40m vehicles in 2-vehicle (80m) sets would
also provide a significant increase in capacity.
24
2.72
As mentioned above, either of these options could also be applied at currentlyforecast ridership levels, to provide additional seating capacity and increase levels of
passenger comfort.
Service Patterns
2.73
In the light of the long-line ridership profile shown above, it is assumed initially that
all the full frequency of LRT services will normally apply all the way from Port Credit
to Brampton, with no need for short turns as part of the main service. The main issue
to be addressed in defining the service pattern is therefore the route pattern in and
around Downtown Mississauga.
2.74
The Corridor Master Plan proposes running two parallel services, one on Hurontario
Street (or close to it on City Centre Drive) and one via the Downtown box. However,
this ‘two-route’ service pattern may cause difficulty with scheduling because of the
differential run times and the need to coordinate headways each side of the box.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the issue as time-distance graphs of the service, using specimen
run times only and a time difference of 5 minutes between ‘direct’ and ‘box’ services.
FIGURE 2.3
ILLUSTRATION OF TWO-ROUTE SCHEDULING DIFFICULTIES
Headway each route (minutes):
Additional time via loop (minutes):
5
5
7.5
5
Brampton GO
Brampton GO
20
20
Shoppers World
Shoppers World
Hwy 407
Hwy 407
15
Britannia
10
Rathburn
Burnhamthorpe
5
Distance (km) by direct route
15
Britannia
10
Rathburn
Burnhamthorpe
5
Dundas
Port Credit
0
0
10
20
Time (minutes)
Direct service
Downtown Loop service
2.75
30
40
Dundas
Port Credit
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (minutes)
Direct service
The left hand graph shows a combined headway of 2½ minutes departing Port Credit,
running alternately every 5 minutes via the box (blue) and direct (red) routes. Because
25
the route around the box takes 5 minutes longer than the direct service, the services
merge again perfectly after Downtown Mississauga to give an even headway towards
Brampton. However, if the combined headway is any other value than 2½ minutes (as
it will need to be at off-peak times), the result is uneven headways. The effect is
illustrated in the right hand graph, which is based on a combined headway of 3¾
minutes. The uneven headways can only be solved by adding an artificial delay on the
Downtown Mississauga box.
2.76
With 2-vehicle coupled sets at 5-minute headways, however, the problem occurs even
at the peak service level and results in the service ‘bunching’ after passing Downtown
Mississauga, as shown in Figure 2.4.
FIGURE 2.4
HEADWAY)
ILLUSTRATION OF TWO-ROUTE SCHEDULING DIFFICULTIES (5 MINUTE
10
4.6
Brampton GO
20
Shoppers World
Hwy 407
15
Britannia
10
Rathburn
Burnhamthorpe
5
Dundas
Port Credit
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (minutes)
Direct service
2.77
This operating pattern therefore imposes significant restrictions on service planning
and is workable only for a narrow range of service parameters.
Ridership Patterns
2.78
26
The optimum combination of infrastructure and services will be finalized when
updated demand modelling results are available. However, because of the importance
and complexity of service planning for the Downtown Mississauga box, a range of
options have been considered in advance of this, using data from the Corridor Master
Plan ridership forecasts to inform the analysis.
2.79
Stop-to-stop origin and destination patterns from the Corridor Master Plan LRT
ridership forecasts for 2031 have been aggregated to produce a simplified matrix of
movements, which is shown in Table 2.4. These represent all trips assigned to HMLRT,
including those transferring from other routes as well as those with trip ends along the
corridor. For transferring trips, only the LRT leg of the journey is represented.
2.80
The numbers apply to the AM peak period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and do not fully
represent the patterns of demand at other times of day (in particular they do not
cover Square One shopping hours). In addition, they are taken directly from the
EMME/2 model outputs and do not include post-model adjustments. However, they are
a useful guide for service definition purposes.
TABLE 2.4
AM PEAK PERIOD RIDERSHIP MATRIX FROM CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN
(2031)
Destination
Brampton
Mississauga
North of
Downtown
Downtown
Mississauga
Mississauga
South of
Downtown
Total
Brampton
3,358
9%
4,804
12%
482
1%
1,424
4%
10,068
26%
Mississauga North
of Downtown
1,057
3%
4,121
11%
1,048
3%
1,641
4%
7,868
20%
Downtown
Mississauga
367
1%
2,203
6%
1,583
4%
3,598
9%
7,751
20%
Mississauga South
of Downtown
456
1%
1,929
5%
2,960
8%
7,776
20%
13,120
34%
5,239
13%
13,057
34%
6,073
16%
14,439
37%
38,806
100%
Origin
Total
Stops included in each grouping:
Mississauga South of Downtown: Port Credit to Central Parkway inclusive
Downtown Mississauga: Burnhamthorpe/Matthews Gate to Rathburn inclusive
Mississauga North of Downtown: Eglinton to Highway 407 inclusive
Brampton: Ray Lawson to Brampton GO inclusive
Source: Corridor Master Plan EMME/2 model outputs
2.81
The percentages in Table 2.4 are also represented graphically in Figure 2.5. For
simplicity, the trips internal to the section north of Downtown Mississauga are
aggregated.
27
FIGURE 2.5 AM PEAK PERIOD LRT RIDERSHIP PATTERNS (2031) FROM CORRIDOR
MASTER PLAN
Source: Corridor Master Plan EMME/2 model outputs
2.82
2.83
2.84
28
Two key points emerge from a comparison of these numbers:
I
over half of trips (54% of the total) are local to the sections north and south of
Downtown Mississauga; and
I
of the remainder (ignoring the 4% internal to the Downtown), twice as many have
an origin or destination in the Downtown (28% of all trips) as pass through (14% of
all trips).
Bearing in mind the caveat in 2.79 above, these points suggest that:
I
whatever service pattern is operated through and around Downtown Mississauga , it
will be essential to maintain even headways on the route sections to the north and
south, given that 54% of trips are internal to one or other of these sections;
I
a through service via the direct route (i.e. bypassing the Downtown Mississauga
box) is a secondary priority compared with the provision of convenient journeys to
and from stops around the Downtown box.
However, this second point needs to be treated with caution. While only 14% of all LRT
trips pass through Downtown Mississauga (as noted in 2.82), this through movement is
half the size of the 28% boarding or alighting in the Downtown, and therefore cannot
be discounted entirely. Service options therefore need to balance the needs of these
different passenger flows with the requirement for a service that is operationally
feasible.
Potential Service Options
2.85
The track layout in the alignment designs includes delta junctions at the corners of
the Downtown Mississauga box, enabling all movements to take place. The
connectivity provided by the track layout is illustrated schematically in Figure 2.6.
This allows through north-to-south and loop services in either direction, providing
considerable flexibility in service design, not only at the planning stage but also when
the LRT is in operation.
FIGURE 2.6
2.86
DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA BOX – FUNCTIONAL TRACK LAYOUT
A number of potential service patterns for Downtown Mississauga are discussed in this
section. These make use of the track layout in different ways, and in themselves may
not require all the proposed connections. However, the layout provides the flexibility
to plan services in a different way from those set out here without restrictions
imposed by the infrastructure. This flexibility is important for:
I
the main scheduled service pattern, which may be different from those envisaged
at the planning stage (many LRT systems adjust their services after
implementation, in response to revealed patterns of ridership);
I
different service patterns at different times (e.g. late evenings, weekends – again
in response to revealed patterns of ridership);
I
occasional off-pattern journeys operating as part of the scheduled service at the
start and end of the day and during transitional periods, which may need to use
different connections (for example, journeys between Port Credit and the MSF);
and
I
different service patterns operated during special events, when part of the
network may not be available.
29
2.87
Therefore, the service patterns identified here are preliminary, and the infrastructure
will allow considerable ‘fine-tuning’ of services post-implementation.
2.88
The service pattern options that have been developed are shown in Table 2.5, with a
qualitative assessment of their advantages and disadvantages. All are based on a 5minute combined peak headway on the main route. In some cases, there is scope for
sub-options by varying the directions of services around the box, but a single example
is representative in each case.
2.89
It would not be necessary to operate the same pattern in all time periods, and the
pattern could be varied to suit demand and operational constraints. However,
increasing complexity would carry a risk to operational robustness and passenger
comprehension.
2.90
The service options presented above would differ only marginally in the resources
required to operate them, given the same main route headway. As an indication of the
differences, the peak vehicle requirement for each has been assessed as described in
paragraph 3.33.
30
TABLE 2.5
Option
1
POTENTIAL SERVICE OPTIONS IN DOWNTOWN MISSISSAUGA
Service Pattern
Description
Two through routes as in the Corridor
Master Plan, one direct (i.e. via the east
side of the Mississauga box) and one
looping through the Downtown (i.e. round
the west side of the box)
Advantages
Disadvantages
If extra dwell is added to loop
service, it will be overtaken by
direct service - hence most
through passengers will use direct
service (at half the total
frequency)
Simple pattern - good for
passenger comprehension
10 minute peak headway on each route
Extra dwell times required to preserve
even headways north and south of
Downtown Mississauga.
If extra dwell is added to direct
service to equalize the two,
frequency for through passengers
is increased, but so is journey
time.
Downtown Mississauga stops only
receive half the total frequency
En-route dwells delay passengers
on the vehicle
Simple pattern - good for
passenger comprehension
2
A single Port Credit-Brampton through
service following the west side of the
Downtown box
Simple to control
5 minute peak headway
Through passengers have full
frequency service (but see
disadvantages)
Maximum frequency and even
headways at all stops
Through passengers have
increased journey time (but see
advantages)
Does not make use of eastern
side of the box in normal
operation (see text)
31
Option
3
Service Pattern
Description
A through Port Credit-Brampton service
following the west side of the Downtown
box, plus ‘loop-back’ services from north
and south (i.e. Port Credit – Downtown
box - Port Credit and Brampton Downtown box - Brampton)
Advantages
Passengers boarding at stops on
west side of Downtown box
benefit from combined 5-minute
headway northbound and
southbound
10 minute peak headway on each route
Disadvantages
Complex pattern – less easy for
passengers to understand and
operating staff to control
Reduced frequency for through
trips (though additional
opportunities available by
transferring)
Also needs extra dwell times to
preserve even headways (see
text)
Relatively simple pattern - good
for passenger comprehension
4
No through Port Credit-Brampton service;
‘loop-back’ services from north and south
as in Option 3
5 minute peak headways on each route
Simple to control
Through trips require transfer
Service disruptions can be
contained to part of route
Cannot schedule layovers in
Downtown Mississauga without
delaying passengers on vehicle –
all layover time at Brampton or
Port Credit
Maximum frequency and even
headways at all stops
If required, different headways
can be operated north and south
of Downtown Mississauga
32
Option
Service Pattern
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Low capital cost
Inconvenient for the majority of
trips, which would require
transfer to/from shuttle bus
A single Port Credit-Brampton through
service via the eastern side of the box
5
5 minute peak headway
Frequent connecting shuttle bus service
linking transfer stops with the Downtown
area
Unlikely to be acceptable
33
Impact of Alternative Alignment Designs
2.91
At mentioned earlier, the alignments in Downtown Mississauga are under review, and
alternatives to the DW1.1 routes are being examined. These include routings via Duke
of York Blvd in place of Living Arts Drive and Square One Drive in place of Rathburn
Road, as well as alternative crossings of Hwy 403.
2.92
In functional terms, the alternatives all provide the same track layout as shown in
Figure 2.6, so that the choice of service pattern is independent of the final alignment
design. There will be some differences in operational terms, driven mainly by slight
differences in run times, but these are expected to be minor in comparison to other
criteria such as stop catchments, access to developments and conformity with
planning objectives (including Downtown21).
2.93
While any increase in journey time can be expected, all other things being equal, to
result in higher operating costs, a significant impact comes about only if the increase
is sufficient to require an additional vehicle or vehicles in service, in which case both
capital costs (fleet size) and operating costs (maintenance, operators etc.) are
affected. However, with journey times for the different routings differing by around
30 seconds, it is not possible at this stage to determine with certainty this will change
the vehicle requirement, as this will depend on the precise journey time and layovers
and hence whether the extra time can be absorbed without extra vehicles. The choice
between alignments in Downtown Mississauga involves much wider issues which are
being addressed in separate work, and operational issues will form a part of the
assessment where they are significant.
Service Patterns - Interim Conclusions
2.94
The operational disadvantages of Option 1 (the Corridor Master Plan pattern) as
discussed in paragraphs 2.73 to 2.77 are considered to outweigh its apparent
simplicity, and it is not recommended for further development. Although it would be
operationally feasible in some time periods where the headway and journey time
differential were compatible, other periods would require a different pattern to be
operated, increasing the complexity of scheduling and risking passenger confusion. In
particular, it would not be suitable for peak period headways without the addition of
several minutes of extra dwell time on one route, either to equalize the two journey
times or to make the difference equal to twice the headway.
2.95
Option 5 would be the lowest cost option to construct and would provide a simple
through running two-way service between Port Credit and Brampton. A stop in
Downtown Mississauga would provide convenient access to the eastern part of the
Downtown area. However, an additional “circulator” would be required to provide
connections to other parts of the Downtown and links to other transit facilities and
services. This is envisaged as a bus operation, since constructing a separate LRT
feeder loop would involve much of the cost of an integral Downtown box while still
requiring passengers to transfer, negating the cost advantage of the option.
34
2.96
2.97
The most complex pattern in timetabling terms is Option 3, and some initial timetable
planning has therefore been carried out to examine feasibility in outline. This suggests
that the option would be operationally feasible but with some disadvantages:
I
An ‘in-service’ layover of 2-3 minutes would need to be inserted in either the
through or the ‘loop-back’ services, with consequent delays to onboard passengers.
While the layover location could be varied by time of day to minimize the impact
(i.e. by laying over near the exit from the box when the dominant flow is inbound
to Downtown Mississauga and at the entry to the box when the main flow is
outbound), the delays would be highly undesirable in terms of journey times and
passenger experience.
I
In addition, the complexity of operation on Option 3 would increase performance
risks – for example a through journey arriving a few minutes late could be trapped
behind a ‘loop-back’ service on layover. Continuous and complex real-time
interventions would be required to mitigate such effects (such as, in the case
discussed here, by holding back the ‘loop-back’ LRV before the box to maintain the
correct sequence of trips). This would be made even more difficult if a variable
pattern by time of day were adopted as described above.
Because of these disadvantages, the Option 3 service pattern is also not recommended
at this stage. The service patterns recommended for further consideration are
therefore:
I
Option 2 – a single service;
I
Option 4 – two ‘loop-back’ services; and
I
Option 5 – a low-cost option, but with less Downtown connectivity.
2.98
Option 2 could form an initial phase of the possible staged infrastructure in Downtown
Mississauga as mentioned in 2.5 above. It would be simple to operate and easy for
passengers to understand, with a single end-to-end service automatically ensuring
even headways throughout the route. As with any option based on through running
over the whole length of the corridor, Option 2 would be vulnerable to delays in one
location spreading to the whole route, though an effective control system would be
able to minimize the impacts by adjusting the service using short turns.
2.99
A service based on Option 2 would not preclude the inclusion of tracks on the east side
of the box for occasional use during maintenance or disruption. However, the
additional costs of this trackage would need to be balanced by the additional
operating flexibility that it would provide.
2.100
Option 4 would also be relatively simple to operate, with two self-contained services
operating largely independently. For ‘cross-Downtown’ trips, transfers would take
place at Main Street for north-to-south through passengers, and at Rathburn Road for
south-to-north passengers, requiring passengers simply to cross from one platform to
the other. The Rathburn Road stop is adjacent to the delta junction and therefore
involves no excess travel distance. However, the Main Street stop is around 600m from
the Hurontario/Burnhamthorpe delta, so that passengers transferring there would
35
‘double back’ for this distance. The detail of stop layouts (including island platforms)
and locations will need to be refined to fit with the various service patterns generated
by each operating option.
2.101
In scheduling terms, the only constraint with Option 4 would be to ensure convenient
times for the transfers in both directions – neither too long (requiring excessive
waiting) nor too short (making transfers vulnerable to small delays). This does not
appear to present any major scheduling difficulties at a range of headways.
2.102
The separation of services north and south of Downtown Mississauga would give some
protection against service disruption, since any delays on one section would not
spread to the other. However, there would be nothing in Option 4 to prevent through
services being operated between north and south of the Downtown if required.
2.103
As mentioned above, there are possible variations incorporating alternative directions
of operation around the Downtown box. As shown, Option 4 would involve LRVs from
Port Credit operating counter-clockwise around the box before returning south, and
LRVs from Brampton circulating clockwise before returning north. The two loop
directions could be reversed if required. Alternatively, both services could operate
around the loop in the same direction (either clockwise or counter-clockwise), but this
would mean that through passengers transferring between the two services in one
direction would need to travel all the way round the Downtown.4
2.104
Options 2 and 5 would not require tracks to be provided around all four sides of the
Downtown Mississauga box. Option 4 would require the full track layout, and this
would provide additional operating flexibility to match services to demand and to
cater for special events. Although different patterns in different time periods can be
confusing to the passenger, if Option 4 were selected as the preferred peak pattern it
would be worth considering switching to Option 2 at quieter periods such as evenings
and Sundays, providing it was acceptable not to serve the east side of the box at such
times.
2.105
These recommendations will be reviewed when information becomes available from
updated demand modelling.
Interlining with Queen Street LRT
2.106
4
If part of the Queen Street HOT corridor emerges as LRT, as discussed earlier
(paragraph 2.38 and following), consideration will need to be given to interlined
services using HMLRT and QSLRT infrastructure. The simple option of a joint Brampton
terminus for two separate services was discussed earlier. Options for interlining will
be partly dependent on the final form of the QSLRT in terms of its route length,
headways and vehicle specification. However, a route extending to Bramalea (or
possibly as a first stage to the Peel Memorial Hospital site) would be short enough to
A unidirectional loop would also potentially allow the whole box to be constructed as single track, but this
configuration would significantly restrict operational flexibility and would preclude some services such as through northsouth services via the west side of the box in one direction.
36
be operated as an extension of HMLRT. This would enable the Queen Street service to
make use of the HMLRT infrastructure and vehicle fleet, sharing the fixed costs and
helping to reduce the initial costs of the QSLRT.
2.107
The simplest operating option would be for LRVs arriving at Brampton to switch
routes, giving passengers the opportunity to travel between the two corridors without
transferring. Because the LRVs would effectively be in mid-route, the reversing time
at Brampton would be limited to the time required for the operator to change ends
and reset the controls, and the full layover including recovery margin would relocate
to Bramalea.
2.108
Another option would be for LRVs to turn directly from Main Street to Queen Street in
Brampton without serving the GO station. Since it is unlikely to be acceptable to
completely remove the service to the GO station from either Hurontario/Main or
Queen, this would require three services to be operated. This would appear to be
feasible in terms of LRT services, as the layover at Brampton GO could be flexed to
even headways, but would be complex to operate and would need to be examined in
detail.
2.109
Interlining means that headways are tied together and the flexibility to vary them
between the two routes is not available. Even if only part of the service interlines, the
headways must be such that an even interval can be preserved on each route.
2.110
The issues here are largely independent of the service options for the Downtown
Mississauga box described above, and the options for interlining with Queen Street
could apply to any of the patterns discussed above.
37
3
LRT Operations
General Principles
3.1
Urban-style LRT operates under general traffic rules, with some special features. The
general method of driving is similar to that of any other road vehicle – i.e. the driver
must control the vehicle and its speed in such a way that it negotiates curves safely
and comfortably and that it can stop short of any obstruction. This contrasts with
railway systems with interlocked signalling, where the driver can proceed on the basis
of signal indications alone and does not need to check visually that the track is clear.
3.2
Under certain circumstances, such as reversible single tracks, LRT may be provided
with interlocked signalling for safety reasons.
3.3
At intersections, dedicated LRT signals are normally provided to provide a clear
indication that it is safe to proceed, to enable LRVs to be given priority over other
traffic and (at junctions) to ensure that the switches are set for the correct route
before the LRV can proceed. These signals may use conventional red/green colour
lights with supplementary plates indicating their applicability to LRT only, or a pattern
of bars formed of white lights, which are more easily distinguished from the main
signals.
3.4
Figure 3.1 illustrates one form of bar signal where a matrix of white lights can be
illuminated in different combinations to indicate different messages. The details of
the signal system will be established as part of the System Specification.
FIGURE 3.1
EXAMPLES OF LRT SIGNAL ASPECTS
Clear to proceed
3.5
Signal changing to stop
(Stop unless unsafe to
do so)
Stop
The maximum speed of an LRT vehicle within the street is generally no more than the
road speed limit. Where the alignment is off-street, the maximum speed is limited by
the clear sighting distance and the normal braking limits for the vehicle.
Run Times
Importance of Fast and Predictable Run Times
3.6
A competitive operating speed is a vital component of a successful LRT project, to
maximise the benefits of major capital investment. Speeds and journey times affect:
39
I
ridership and revenue, through the competitive position of LRT with respect to
other modes;
I
operating costs, through the efficiency in the use of vehicles and human resources;
and
I
capital costs, through the number of vehicles required to operate a given level of
service.
3.7
In addition, a predictable journey time, with the smallest possible variations between
individual trips, is required to ensure an attractive service by minimizing passenger
wait times and ensuring even loadings between consecutive vehicles. If run time varies
significantly, headways become irregular and average passenger wait times start to
increase because more people accumulate at stops during the longer intervals
between services. In addition, at busy stops greater numbers of boarding passengers
can increase dwell times, causing the extended headway to become even longer and
leading to the familiar phenomenon of ‘bunching’.
3.8
The achievement of both fast and regular run times therefore means insulating the
LRT operation as much as possible from external influences, in particular road traffic
interactions and traffic signal delays. Both of these are important and have the
potential to erode the benefits of LRT. Operation in mixed traffic should be avoided,
as it not only reduces LRT operating speeds but introduces a high level of
unpredictability to journey times. With this in mind, the HMLRT project is being
developed with maximum possible segregation from road traffic and a high degree of
priority at signals.
General Assumptions
3.9
3.10
3.11
40
On systems of this type, LRT vehicles are treated as other road vehicles in that:
I
they are driven on ‘line of sight’ as described above;
I
they are generally subject to the same maximum speeds as other road traffic; and
I
they are subject to traffic signal control (generally with their own distinct signals).
The run time from stop to stop and the total run time for the route are affected by:
I
the alignment geometry;
I
applied speed limits;
I
the performance of the vehicle (acceleration, deceleration and maximum speed);
I
the time spent at stops (dwell);
I
the positioning of stops relative to intersections; and
I
the delays encountered at signal-controlled intersections.
The last of these depends on intersection designs, signal phasings and LRT signal
priority, and is the most difficult to forecast in the early stages in project
development. However, preliminary estimates can be prepared using experience of
what can be achieved in practice, taking account of the conflicting demands on finite
capacity made by LRT and other road users such as buses, pedestrians and general
traffic. These preliminary estimates will be confirmed by comparison with the results
of traffic microsimulation.
3.12
Where LRVs run in mixed traffic, run times depend on the volume of traffic and its
relation to capacity, plus the delays to which it is subject as a result of signals,
turning vehicles (especially left turns) etc. The resulting LRT run time will be much
more variable than on segregated routes, and forecasting requires a microsimulation
model such as VISSIM that is able to take account of traffic interactions and stochastic
processes (i.e. those that include a random element).
3.13
The purpose of the operational planning reported here is to set out the operating
parameters and assumptions as part of the 30% design and business case work. While
the VISSIM modelling will explore the traffic signal system capability, including priority
algorithms, in more detail, its purpose is also to support the process of developing the
overall case for the project. The full engineering details of traffic signal control and
priority, including equipment specifications and interfaces with the Cities’ systems,
will be developed in the linked ITS workstream.
Run Time Model
3.14
Recognising the uncertainties associated with signal delays, preliminary run times have
been prepared using a spreadsheet model based on the following key inputs:
I
Vehicle performance – acceleration and deceleration rates;
I
Link characteristics – distances, curvature, maximum speed; and
I
Delay characteristics – stop dwell times, signal intersection delays.
3.15
Given an alignment design and an outline vehicle specification, most of these inputs
can be defined to degree of certainty that is sufficient for operational planning
purposes. Intersection delays, however, are more difficult to define and require
assumptions to be made about the level of signal priority that can be achieved in
practice, balancing the competing needs of different road users.
3.16
To allow a range of priority levels to be investigated, two scenarios for signal priority
have therefore been defined. The first is a ‘High’ priority scenario, based on an LRV
receiving no restrictive signals and being able to proceed through all intersections
without delay. This is unlikely to be achievable in practice but gives a measure of the
lower limit of run time. The second scenario is ‘Moderate-High’ priority and is based
on a more cautious approach with signal delays varying according a subjective
assessment of the size and functions of individual intersections. This second scenario
still assumes a significant amount of signal priority, with all minor intersections
assumed to be free of delays.
3.17
It should be emphasised that these are preliminary assumptions, and the forecasts will
be refined using microsimulation modelling that takes into account the actual signal
timings, traffic flows and overall delays.
41
Run Time Forecasts
3.18
The run time modelling covers the route from Port Credit to Brampton in the
northbound direction, based on the DW1.1 alignment drawings. To avoid complex
discussion of run times for different service options, including possible Downtown
Mississauga loop-back services, run times are presented here for simple end-to-end
routes running the whole length of the corridor, via either City Centre Drive or Living
Arts Drive.
3.19
Table 3.1 presents the results of the run time model based on the two levels of signal
priority defined above. Link times are quoted mid-dwell to mid-dwell, i.e. with stop
dwell times distributed equally to the adjacent links. The figures apply to the
northbound direction; the southbound end-to-end times can be expected to be similar,
but timings at intermediate points may vary slightly because of the different order in
which curves, stops and signals etc. are approached and the fact that some stops have
platforms staggered each side of an intersection.
42
TABLE 3.1
PRELIMINARY RUN TIME MODEL RESULTS
Journey Time in minutes
(mid-dwell to mid-dwell)
From stop
3.20
To stop
High Priority
Moderate-High
Priority
via City
Centre
Drive
via Living
Arts Drive
via City
Centre
Drive
via Living
Arts Drive
Elizabeth St
Port Credit GO
Mineola Street
N Service Rd
Queensway
Dundas Street
Cooksville GO
Central Pkwy
Matthews Gate
City Centre Drive
Matthews Gate
Main Street
Port Credit GO
Mineola Street
N Service Rd
Queensway
Dundas Street
Cooksville GO
Central Pkwy
Matthews Gate
City Centre Drive
Rathburn Rd
Main Street
Living Arts Drive
1.8
1.6
2.1
1.4
1.8
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
-
1.8
1.6
2.1
1.4
1.8
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.8
1.6
2.4
1.1
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.2
-
2.1
1.6
2.8
1.6
2.4
1.1
2.0
1.1
2.1
1.8
Living Arts Drive
IR Transit Terminal
Rathburn Rd
Eglinton Ave
Bristol Rd
Matheson Blvd
Britannia Rd
Courtneypark Dr
Derry Rd
Hwy 407 P&R
Ray Lawson Blvd
Sir Lou Drive
IR Transit Terminal
Rathburn Rd
Eglinton Ave
Bristol Rd
Matheson Blvd
Britannia Rd
Courtneypark Dr
Derry Rd
Hwy 407 P&R
Ray Lawson Blvd
Sir Lou Drive
Shoppers World
2.8
1.8
1.4
1.7
2.3
1.8
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.0
2.9
1.8
1.4
1.7
2.3
1.8
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.3
3.6
2.1
1.7
1.8
2.7
2.1
1.2
2.5
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.0
3.7
2.1
1.7
1.8
2.7
2.1
1.2
2.5
1.1
1.6
Shoppers World
Charolais Blvd
Nanwood Drive
Queen Street
Charolais Blvd
Nanwood Drive
Queen Street
Brampton GO
1.2
1.7
2.5
1.2
1.2
1.7
2.5
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.7
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.7
1.2
Total Time (minutes)
39.0
42.5
44.9
48.8
Distance (km)
21.7
23.3
21.7
23.3
Average Speed (km/h)
33.4
32.8
28.9
28.6
It will be noted that some timings are the same under both priority assumptions. This
is because the differences between the two assumptions are concentrated at specific
signal-controlled intersections where different levels of priority are applied – generally
the intersections with major cross-streets. Minor intersections are assumed to have
43
the same level of priority (i.e. no signal delays) in both cases. Links with no major
intersections will therefore have the same link times under both assumptions.
3.21
These times do not include any specific recovery margins within the journey. While
some variations in run time between individual trips are inevitable, an effective signal
priority plan will minimise these. The addition of specific recovery time would lead to
some trips running early or ‘waiting time’ at an intermediate point. It is therefore
assumed that any minor delays can be recovered within the layover times at each end
of the route (discussed in the next section).
3.22
A high quality of service, with attractive journey times and a high standard of
reliability, is a key objective of the HMLRT project. Insulating LRT from the effects of
traffic delays, using dedicated rights of way and priority at signals, will be a vital
ingredient in its success. The High priority scenario for traffic signals is therefore to be
treated as an ideal target in ongoing project development. Departures from it should
be accepted, on a case-by-case basis, only after it is demonstrated that such a high
level of signal priority cannot be achieved at a particular location without
unacceptable impacts on other users. While it is recognised that compromise will be
required at various locations and that such ‘absolute’ priority is unlikely be achievable
throughout the route, the starting point should always be the position of ‘no delay to
LRT’.
Layover Times
3.23
Before estimating fleet size and operating costs it is necessary to add layover times at
each end of the route to allow for small natural variations in run time and provide
time for the operator to change ends, enter trip data, reset destination displays and
carry out a brief ‘sweep’ for lost property etc. Depending on staffing arrangements, a
comfort break may also be allowed for, but this may be accommodated by operator
changeovers. Scheduled layover times on some LRT systems are as short as 1-2
minutes, but it is usual to allow longer than this.
3.24
For planning purposes, 10 minutes of layover time per round trip (5 minutes at each
terminus) has been assumed, representing about 10% over and above the running time.
The microsimulation modelling will enable us to confirm this by measuring the
expected variability of run times and specify a layover time that will enable almost all
trips to start on schedule.
3.25
The maximum possible layover time is governed by the headway and the capacity of
the terminal stops. The Corridor Master Plan and the DW1.1 designs provide two
reversing platforms at both Port Credit and Brampton, which will be adequate for a 5minute headway and a layover of approximately 5 minutes under normal
circumstances. Terminal operations will be examined in more detail at a later stage.
3.26
In practice the round trip or cycle time (the sum of the end-to-end time in both
directions plus the sum of the layovers at each end) must be a multiple of the
headway. The layover time is therefore also influenced by the actual values of the
44
end-to-end time and headway, and is therefore generally adjusted accordingly when
planning the timetable.
3.27
Furthermore, as both run times and service patterns may vary over the day, layover
will also tend to vary, particularly at transitional times when vehicles being added to
or removed from the service. At this stage a detailed timetable plan has not been
prepared to establish the precise distribution of layover times.
Cycle Times and Fleet Sizes
3.28
Table 3.2 shows estimates of the vehicle requirement and fleet size for each priority
assumption and its resulting run time. The table is based on service Option 2 (a single
route via the west side of the Downtown Mississauga box using Living Arts Drive), as
this is the simplest way of showing the derivation of the numbers.
3.29
Table 3.2 includes run times rounded up to whole minutes for scheduling, plus a
minimum of 5 minutes of layover time at each end of the route, selected to produce
cycle times as a multiple of the headway. The results illustrate the effect of different
priority assumptions on the resulting fleet size.
3.30
The current operational planning assumption based on available ridership data is that
the peak service will operate at a headway of 5 minutes using two-vehicle sets.
However, as mentioned in paragraph 2.2, the DW1.1 designs are being developed to
allow for three-car sets as ‘future-proofing’ against possible higher ridership resulting
from land use intensification. The lower part of the table therefore shows alternative
peak vehicle requirements (PVRs) and fleet sizes for two-vehicle and three-vehicle
sets.
45
TABLE 3.2
PRELIMINARY VEHICLE REQUIREMENT AND FLEET SIZE
High Priority
Moderate-High
Priority
42.5 min
48.8 min
Scheduled time for operational planning
43 min
49 min
Round trip time net of layover
86 min
98 min
Layover time (total both termini)
14 min
12 min
Total round trip time (cycle time) as multiple of headway
100 min
110 min
5 min
5 min
20
22
End-to-end run time Port Credit-Brampton (both
directions assumed equal):
Run time model (DW1.1, via Living Arts Drive)
Peak headway
Number of coupled 2 or 3 car sets for peak service
LRVs per set (peak)
2
3
2
3
Peak vehicle requirement (LRVs)
40
60
44
66
Maintenance and standby spares cover (LRVs)
6
9
7
10
Total fleet size (LRVs)
46
69
51
76
Note: This table is based on a simple end-to-end service via the Mississauga Downtown box, i.e.
Option 2 as described in Table 2.5. Estimated fleet sizes will vary slightly from the numbers
shown, depending on the final service pattern, as discussed in para. 3.33.
3.31
3.32
46
The number of spare vehicles shown above represents a margin of around 15% over
and above the peak vehicle requirement, which is a typical allowance to provide for
standby vehicles, scheduled maintenance and occasional corrective maintenance and
repairs. It would be desirable, however, to allow additional ‘contingency’ vehicles
over and above this number, which would increase the robustness of the system to
manage:
I
short-term or lasting increases in run times caused by such things as exceptional
traffic delays (including road construction), special event traffic or difficulty in
achieving the assumed level of signal priority;
I
additional vehicles out of service for unscheduled work such as accident repairs;
I
some growth in ridership.
In advance of final run time estimates, a detailed timetable plan has not been
prepared at this stage. When the final run time forecasts are available, a full standard
hour timetable will need to be prepared to enable peak vehicle requirements to be
confirmed.
Effect of Alternative Service Patterns
3.33
As mentioned previously, the alternative service patterns explored in Chapter 1 would
have a small effect on the peak vehicle requirement, and hence the fleet size and
costs. The variation is shown in Table 3.3, for the Moderate-High priority scenario. The
differentials between options could be expected to be similar for the High priority
scenario. Where required, the estimates allow for extra dwell times required to
produce regular headways. Other than for low-cost Option 5, where LRT does not
serve Downtown Mississauga directly, the options do not differ by more than one set
for service.
TABLE 3.3
Option
VARIATION IN FLEET SIZE WITH SERVICE OPTION
Coupled Sets for
Peak Service
2 LRVs per Set
3 LRVs per Set
PVR
Fleet Size
PVR
Fleet Size
1
22
44
51
66
76
2
22
44
51
66
76
3
23
46
53
69
80
4
23
46
53
69
80
5
20
40
46
60
69
Note: Option 5 would also require buses to operate Downtown Mississauga shuttle
Maintenance and Storage Facility
3.34
The location of the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) is currently being revisited
and the operational implications of this will be examined when further details have
been established. This work will also cover the ‘internal’ operations in terms of the
facilities and site area required.
3.35
As a minimum, the size of the facility will need to be sufficient for the HMLRT fleet
shown in Table 3.2 (including possible variations as in Table 3.3). The site will also
need to be large enough to allow for expansion beyond this to accommodate, if
required, a larger number of 30m vehicles to operate in 3-vehicle sets, or alternatively
the same number of longer 40m vehicles.
3.36
In addition, there may be synergies with other LRT lines, if any of the HOT corridors
currently being planned to intersect HMLRT emerge as LRT in the long term. As well as
the prospect of through services (not considered at this stage), there may be scope for
sharing MSF capacity. This is being considered in the MSF site assessment work being
undertaken.
3.37
Operationally the MSF will need to be connected to the corridor in such a way that
LRVs can enter and leave service in either direction with the minimum of delay. The
47
ideal location is mid-route, so that each terminus is equally accessible and the
distance between the MSF and the furthest point on the route is as short as possible
(thus minimizing the response time in case of incidents or vehicle substitutions). For
service planning, however, if service standards specify fixed times for first and last
departures/arrivals at each end, there is no difference between MSF locations in terms
of the total amount of deadheading required, since longer trips to/from one end of
the route are balanced by shorter trips to/from the other.
3.38
The connection between the MSF and the running lines should be as short as possible
to minimize non-revenue mileage and potential risks to the service should the
connection be blocked. Locating the MSF close to a stop makes handovers simpler as
operators can walk between an in-service vehicle and the MSF. Where the MSF is
remote, then separate arrangements for operator handover may need to be made, or
an on-route operator facility established. In some cases it may be necessary to provide
‘ferry’ operators and/or road vehicles between the MSF and the nearest stop,
increasing operating costs and vulnerability to delay.
3.39
Ideally the length of the connecting spur should be no more than about 500m, so that
these impacts are kept within reasonable bounds. However, if the capital costs of a
more remote site are significantly lower, then there may be a case for accepting the
higher operating costs that will result.
3.40
If the MSF connection runs along a street, particular attention is required to minimise
the risks of blockage, since an incident on this section can paralyse the entire service.
Segregation from road traffic is essential, ideally with two bi-directional tracks to
provide a degree of redundancy.
Sharing of MSF Facilities between HMLRT and Other Lines
3.41
A track connection between the Hurontario Main LRT and other future LRT lines could
potentially allow MSF facilities to be shared between lines. However, this would
depend on the size of operation involved. As discussed elsewhere in this report, a
relatively short addition such as Queen Street LRT from Brampton to Bramalea could
fit well with HMLRT in operational terms, with the two effectively forming a single
service, and a shared MSF would therefore be appropriate.
3.42
If, however, the additional line were to be a major LRT route - comparable in size to
HMLRT in terms of fleet size - the ‘economies of scale’ benefits of a shared MSF might
be less than for a smaller-scale add-on to HMLRT. The HMLRT MSF would most likely
be located some distance from the intersection point, so there would be a significant
amount of deadheading. In addition, the need to deploy a large number of vehicles
from the site in the morning and return them at night would lead to an earlier start
and later finish to the operating day.
3.43
Adding additional vehicles to the HMLRT MSF would increase the site size required,
and some of the candidate sites currently under consideration may not have sufficient
site area for the number of vehicles required for two major LRT lines.
48
3.44
It would therefore be more appropriate for the vehicles for any future major LRT lines
intersecting HMLRT to be stabled on their own dedicated sites, in locations best suited
to the day to day operational requirements of those lines. These sites would include
stabling tracks, daily cleaning and maintenance facilities and staff facilities for the
drivers, conductors, cleaning, maintenance and supervisory staff as a minimum.
3.45
However, there may be a case for some of the heavy maintenance facilities to be
shared between lines. This could avoid duplication of specialist maintenance
equipment, and allow for the concentration of specialist vehicle maintenance and
repair knowledge at a single location. The benefits of a combined facility would only
be maximized if the fleets were of a common design, and might require special
contractual arrangements if the lines were operated by different organizations.
3.46
Shared heavy maintenance would require vehicles to be transferred between the lines
on a relatively infrequent basis, as determined by the maintenance schedule. The
connecting tracks between HMLRT and the other LRT lines required to support
occasional vehicle transfers could therefore be simpler than those required for a
frequent passenger service, and might be more easily accommodated within local
constraints. For example a bidirectional single track (with appropriate crossovers
either end) could suffice in place of the double track connection required for a
through passenger service, and the TSP system would not need to be designed to
prioritize the occasional transfer movements.
Traction Power Supply
3.47
The traction power supply and distribution system will be specified to deliver
sufficient power for the service as planned, including degraded operation and
recovery, and should not have an impact on operational planning. This is a system
design/specification issue and will be dealt with under a separate workstream, with
appropriate operational inputs.
Bus Substitution
3.48
At certain times it may be necessary to substitute buses for LRVs, either because of
essential maintenance on the track, overhead or power supply, or in an emergency.
Replacement buses may also need to be used in the late evenings (after midnight) to
allow for infrastructure maintenance. Along most of the HMLRT route, it is possible for
buses to use parallel traffic lanes in such circumstances, stopping at the nearest
normal bus stop. However, depending on the final design, there may be sections
where this is difficult or impossible. In such cases, replacement bus services will need
to run on the appropriate parallel street as used by local buses, and local publicity will
need to direct intending passengers to this location in advance.
3.49
In any event, bus stops that are served by LRT replacement buses should be
distinctively identified, so that passengers are in no doubt about where they can board
or alight when LRVs are not running.
49
4
Service Plan and Preliminary Operating Statistics
General
4.1
Operating costs are a key input to the case for LRT and, together with fares revenue,
define the budget for the ongoing operation of the system. The estimation of costs
requires, among other things, operating statistics (kilometres run, hours of operation
etc.) for a full year.
4.2
So far, the operational assessments in this report have concentrated on peak services
and ridership. Before total operating and hence operating costs can be estimated it is
also necessary to define a service plan or profile covering off-peak and weekend
services and the length of the operating day. This will be completed once the
preferred peak service pattern has been confirmed, but in the meantime some initial
assumptions have been made to derive preliminary operating statistics.
4.3
The service plan defines the frequency in vehicles per hour provided to meet the
expected level of demand in each time period. This is mainly an issue of capacity, and
different loading standards can be adopted in different periods depending on the
criteria applied (e.g. total capacity in the peak or seating capacity in the off-peak). A
maximum headway may also be applied, irrespective of demand, to ensure acceptable
waiting times.
4.4
Where coupled vehicles are planned to be used, as is the case here, it is also
necessary to consider set lengths (LRVs per set), and in particular whether the same
set length is to be operated at all times, or whether different lengths are to be
operated in different time periods. For HMLRT, two-vehicle coupled sets at 5-minute
headways have been assumed for the Monday to Friday peaks, giving a service level of
24 LRVs per hour. At other times, however, when the system is not experiencing
maximum demand, coupled vehicles may not be essential to provide the required
capacity. As mentioned previously, there are advantages and disadvantages to
multiple operation, which need to be balanced to arrive at an optimum service plan.
Service Plan
4.5
Table 4.1 shows a preliminary service plan by time period and day of the week. At this
stage the trade-off between the points mentioned above have not been examined, so
the data in the table is preliminary. It is based on two-vehicle (60m) sets in the peak
and will need to be revised if the demand forecasting suggests that longer sets (2x40m
or 3x30m) should be adopted. The assumptions are:
I
two-vehicle operation in the early AM Monday to Friday, because this is a relatively
short period before the peak build-up;
I
two-vehicle operation between the peaks Monday to Friday to avoid complex
transitions at busy times;
I
two-vehicle operation during the daytime periods at weekends;
51
I
single vehicle operation in the evenings on all days;
I
single vehicle operation early morning periods at weekends;
I
a maximum headway of 10 minutes.
TABLE 4.1
Day
Monday
to Friday
Saturday
Sunday
SERVICE PLAN
Service
Level (LRVs
per hour)
Set Length
(LRVs per
set)
Scheduled
Frequency
(Sets per
hour)
Scheduled
Headway
(minutes)
Period
Times
Early
5:00AM7:00AM
12
2
6
10
AM peak
7:00AM10:00AM
24
2
12
5
Interpeak
10:00AM2:00PM
16
2
8
7.5
PM Peak
2:00PM6:30PM
24
2
12
5
Evening
6:30PM1:30AM
8
1
8
7.5
Early
5:00AM9:00AM
6
1
6
10
Daytime
9:00AM6:00PM
16
2
8
7.5
Evening
6:00PM1:30AM
8
1
8
7.5
Early
7:00AM11:00AM
6
1
6
10
Daytime
11:00AM6:00PM
12
2
6
10
Evening
6:00PM12:00AM
6
1
6
10
Notes:
Service level in LRVs per hour defines line capacity. Service frequency and headway define
passenger waiting times.
All details in this table are preliminary and subject to confirmation.
4.6
52
In practice there would be gradual transitions between the time periods, with vehicles
entering of leaving service gradually. Transitions between single and multiple vehicle
operation would ideally be handled by LRVs already in service, while running alreadycoupled sets to/from the MSF.
Preliminary Operating Statistics
4.7
Based on the service plan set out in previous chapters, some initial operating statistics
have been estimated for the LRT route, as set out in Table 4.2, assuming:
I
a single route via the west side of the Downtown Mississauga box (to avoid the need
for a full timetabling exercise at this stage)
I
Moderate-High priority
I
the service profile set out in Table 4.1
I
a simple step transition between operating periods
I
a nominal 2% addition for non-revenue travel, to allow for trips to/from the MSF
(deadheading)5, test runs etc.
TABLE 4.2
4.8
PRELIMINARY OPERATING STATISTICS
Annual set kilometres
2.95 million
Annual vehicle kilometres
4.84 million
Annual set hours
117,000
LRVs in fleet
51
Average kilometres per LRV
95,000
Preliminary operating costs will be estimated for the updated Benefits Case, based on
the operating statistics for the preferred operating plan.
5
In practice, if the MSF is adjacent to the LRT route, deadheading need not result in significant additional mileage,
since vehicles can enter or leave service as their ‘slot’ passes the MSF, thus gradually ramping the frequency up or down
each side of the nominal transition time.
53
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared by Steer Davies Gleave North America Inc. (SDG) for
the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any
other project or purpose without prior written authority from SDG being obtained.
SDG accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being
used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person
using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use
or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify SDG for all loss or damage
resulting therefrom.
SDG accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the
person by whom it was commissioned.
Any projections of traffic and revenue contained within this document represent SDG’s
best estimates. While they are not precise forecasts, they do represent, in our view, a
reasonable expectation for the future, based on the most credible information
available as of the date of this report. However, the estimates contained within this
document rely on numerous assumptions and judgments and are influenced by
external circumstances that can change quickly and can affect income. To the extent
that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, SDG accepts no
liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious,
stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than SDG and
used by SDG in preparing this report.
Disclaimer
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name
Hurontario/Main LRT Project - Preliminary Design/TPAP
Document Title
Client Contract/Project No.
SDG Project/Proposal No.
22390002
ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No.
Date
Details
1.0
July 2012
Draft for issue
1.1
October 2012
Revised draft following comments from
Cities of Mississauga and Brampton
1.2
October 2012
For Issue
REVIEW
Originator
Dick Dapré
Other Contributors
Review by:
Print
Ashley Curtis
Sign
DISTRIBUTION
Client:
Cities of Mississauga and Brampton
Steer Davies Gleave:
\\sdgworld.net\Data\London\Projects\223\9\00\02\Work\Operational Planning\Preliminary System Operations Plan\Main drafts\Hurontario Preliminary System
Operations Plan v1.2.docx
Control Sheet

B.12 Preliminary System Operations Plan - Mississauga

Transcription

Similar documents

bride of tod - Rail~Volution

PARK DAY

Community Connector

bowling at brunswick bramalea lanes saturday

IGGYS promo card v5 - small

HURONTARIO-MAIN LRT PROJECT NEWS

Image - Mississauga.ca

Appendix F

15 Monumental things you MUST do in Downtown Indy

NYO_Discover_Downtow..