(01-18-2016, 12:13 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]I noticed that the Waterloo Spur at Weber has crossing arms now! Maybe they've been there for weeks/months, but I only just noticed them today. Are they active? Has anyone seen them in action yet?
My question is, how do we lobby GRT to drive through, without coming to a complete stop at, these fully controlled intersections?
Sometimes the US has exemptions for railway spur crossings, but I don't see any such provision in Ontario's Highway Traffic Act. s174 is the relevant section:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08.
Direct Link
Quote:174. (1) The driver of a public vehicle upon approaching on a highway a railway crossing that is not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights, unless otherwise directed by a flagman, shall,
(a) stop the vehicle not less than 5 metres from the nearest rail of the railway;
(b) look in both directions along the railway track;
© open a door of the vehicle and listen to determine if any train is approaching;
(d) when it is safe to do so, cross the railway track in a gear that will not need to be changed while crossing the track; and
(e) not change gears while crossing the railway track. 1997, c. 12, s. 13.
That covers crossings that are
not protected by gates or signal lights.
Ottawa, for one, allows buses to travel freely over signalized crossings.
(01-18-2016, 04:52 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]Ottawa, for one, allows buses to travel freely over signalized crossings.
Maybe not the best example.
Reference
That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals. If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.
(01-18-2016, 06:19 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals. If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.
Yet, if the bus needed to always stop at rail crossings the driver would have been decelerating in auto-pilot mode, rather than accelerating.
The way I heard it is that bus/train collisions are rare, but when they happen mortality figures tend to be very high, thus the extra caution.
(01-18-2016, 06:19 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]That bus that ran through a closed gate with flashing signals. If we can't make some assumptions (i.e. that buses will stop at red lights), then we can't function as a society.
Quote:Key issues in the investigation
...
Expectation and driver perception
Over the previous 12 months, the driver had dozens of shifts in a double-decker bus, and had driven over the Transitway crossing approximately 60 times. However, given the varied schedules of OC Transpo buses and VIA trains, the driver would rarely have encountered a train at this crossing. Drivers who are familiar with a crossing and who have a “no trains” expectation tend not to look in either direction while approaching a crossing and are less likely to reduce their approach speed than drivers who are unfamiliar with a crossing.
(Source:
Collision between OC Transpo bus and VIA passenger train: Executive summary)
In other words, drivers developed habits (i.e. speeding around a blind curve) that relied on the assumption that no train would be present.
I think that the benefits of not having buses stop at protected crossings will typically far outweigh the risks, but the Ottawa accident showed what could happen when a driver was subjected to poor sight-lines and multiple distractions while approaching a rail crossing that they rarely needed to stop at. If the Region does move to eliminate this requirement, they'll need to ensure that the risks identified by the TSB are sufficiently addressed.
Yeah, I don't really have a problem with buses stopping at all railway crossings. It adds like what, 10 seconds to a trip? What's the difference between that and coming up to a light just as it changes to red, or having to stop for a pedestrian crosswalk if someone happens to press the button? Maybe buses should take also priority at pedestrian crossings, since 1 person at a pedestrian crossing holding up a bus full of 50 people doesn't really make much sense.
Railway crossings by buses are about to get a lot more common, and it is yet another thing that makes buses act differently than cars in traffic.
I'm in favour of buses being permitted to cross with the usual car-level of caution for signal-bearing crossings at the very least.
As for pedestrians, their life isn't hard enough in the region? :)
Traffic signals are too dumb to do anything as smart as delaying the change to amber based on an oncoming transit vehicle. Our infrastructure as a whole is too dumb for something even that simple.
(01-19-2016, 01:51 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]Traffic signals are too dumb to do anything as smart as delaying the change to amber based on an oncoming transit vehicle. Our infrastructure as a whole is too dumb for something even that simple.
What? No, they're not too dumb to do that. They're explicitly designed to be able to do this for transit and emergency vehicles. The trouble is that this functionality isn't used much for transit, for fear of impacting non-transit traffic in any way.
(01-19-2016, 02:45 PM)mpd618 Wrote: [ -> ]What? No, they're not too dumb to do that. They're explicitly designed to be able to do this for transit and emergency vehicles. The trouble is that this functionality isn't used much for transit, for fear of impacting non-transit traffic in any way.
Yep. We've had traffic signal preemption for a long time now. But around here, we haven't taken the logical step of using it for transit vehicles along with emergency services.
(01-19-2016, 01:51 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]Railway crossings by buses are about to get a lot more common, and it is yet another thing that makes buses act differently than cars in traffic.
Are you saying that buses need to stop where light rail crosses an intersection? And is that true? Otherwise, I can't think of a lot more railway crossings.
(01-19-2016, 02:55 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that buses need to stop where light rail crosses an intersection? And is that true? Otherwise, I can't think of a lot more railway crossings.
Everywhere the spur line crosses- Weber, Moore (no longer applicable for GRT), Union, University. It's only a handful of seconds, but if you think of how many times various GRT buses take those streets, it adds up. And, in this case, this rail line is used all of twice a day.
(01-19-2016, 03:17 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2016, 02:55 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that buses need to stop where light rail crosses an intersection? And is that true? Otherwise, I can't think of a lot more railway crossings.
Everywhere the spur line crosses- Weber, Moore (no longer applicable for GRT), Union, University. It's only a handful of seconds, but if you think of how many times various GRT buses take those streets, it adds up. And, in this case, this rail line is used all of twice a day.
But those aren't new crossings.
Quote:What? No, they're not too dumb to do that. They're explicitly designed to be able to do this for transit and emergency vehicles. The trouble is that this functionality isn't used much for transit, for fear of impacting non-transit traffic in any way.
But aren't they one-size-fits-all "you must green in the direction I'm going while I'm coming and then cycle the lights once I'm gone"?
Incidentally, I watched an Ambulance head through Westmount/Erb with preemption live about a week ago. It gave Erb two cycles in a row while I was waiting in the Nbound left turn lane on my bicycle. It is for this and other (green wave, people being in general quite bad at self-transportation) reasons that I believe that the infrastructure's unable to do anything smart.
But, as you so rightly identify, it could very well be that it isn't the intelligence of the infrastructure that's the chokepoint, but the intelligence of those in charge of it...
(01-19-2016, 02:55 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2016, 01:51 PM)chutten Wrote: [ -> ]Railway crossings by buses are about to get a lot more common, and it is yet another thing that makes buses act differently than cars in traffic.
Are you saying that buses need to stop where light rail crosses an intersection? And is that true? Otherwise, I can't think of a lot more railway crossings.
Do they not? Will they not be
Quote:railway crossing[s] that [are] not protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights
I think you guys are forgetting there are essentially two operating modes from a safety standpoint of the LRV's:
-Low speed, urban modes operating in a centre ROW at the same speed limit as traffic around it, but generally operating slower through intersections (20-30 km/h). ie, Charles/Benton, etc. - there will be no gates or signals here beyond regular traffic signals and tram signals.
-Higher speed, spur-line modes, operating on upgraded railway track. Analogous to a conventional train or railway, with warning signals, bells, and crossing gate arms.
The former would see buses operate exactly as they do today at any intersection; proceeding through a green light, even if it means crossing the tracks.
The latter would still see buses stop (or, I should say, behave exactly as they do when crossing any mainline railway).