ESC 102 Praxis 2 1 of 6

Request for Proposal

Improving Passenger Safety at Streetcar Stops

1.0 - Introduction
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) provides public transportation for
commuters in Toronto. In 2006, the ridership on the TTC was 444.5 million [1]. These
commuters represent 18% Toronto’s population [2]. Streetcars are an integral part of the
system. There are 11 streetcar lines [3] centered in busy downtown Toronto. In 2006,
streetcar riderhsip was 52 million [1]. The safety of these passengers as they enter and
exit streetcars is a special challenge for the TTC, a challenge that affects the usabilitiy of
streetcars.

1.1 - Description of Streetcar System and Streetcar Stops

Toronto has used streetcars since 1861 [4] when the first horse drawn streetcar
was in operation. Since then, there have been sereval generations of streetcars, or LRVs.
An LRV (a light rail vehicle) is a vehicle used in public
transportation; it is a “tram, trolley, streetcar etc. constructed in the
1970s or later [5].” The LRV system in Toronto, which consists of
a fleet of streetcars operated by the TTC, has three basic types of
stops.
1. Stops that go directly into a station. At these stations
passengers do not disembark near traffic.
2. Stops with shelters on islands. An island is a curb made
of concrete that is positioned between two lanes of
traffic. Its purpose for LRVs is to provide a place for
passengers to disembark out of the way of traffic. Figure 1: A streetcar at an
3. Stops without an island that are marked on the sidewalk. island on a dedicated route
These stops may or may not have a transit shelter. We
will focus on these stops and their lack of safety for
entering and exiting passengers in this RFP.

2.0 - Insufficient Level of Safety at Streetcar Stops

Safety is an issue at streetcar stops with no islands because there is a danger that
passengers getting on and off could be hit by cars passing between the streetcar and the
curb. The streetcar stops in its tracks, at least one lane from the curb, and signals to the
drivers to stop by opening its doors. Drivers are given no time to react before the
passengers start to cross the road, resulting in a dangerous situation for the entering and
exiting passengers. As a result of this, a passenger is hit by an automobile passing the
open doors of a streetcar every month, and TTC operators witness 100 incidents every
day of cars failing to stop behind the streetcar [6]. “Some of them are not very serious,"
admitted TTC Chair Adam Giambrone speaking on these such incidents, "sometimes
there have been very serious incidences." A TTC streetcar operator said, "a lot of drivers,
they think because they see the green light that they can go right by our open doors [6]".
In the RFP we focus on the safety of the exiting passenger because drivers cannot see an
exiting passenger until the doors are openned and they are stepping down into traffic.
ESC 102 Praxis 2 2 of 6

Developing a solution to allow passengers to exit a streetcar safely is important in

improving the usability of the TTC.
Usability is the set of attributes which describe the convienience and ease with
which something can be used [7]. Safety is an important factor in usability. As Donald
Norman states: “proper design can help decrease the incidence and severity of errors by
eliminating the causes of some, minimizing the possibilities of others, and helping to
make errors discoverable, once they have been made [8].” If the TTC can improve the
safety of streetcars, they will be improving the usability.

2.1 - The Major Safety Issues on the 511

In this RFP we focus on the non-dedicated 511
Bathurst streetcar route. It is a busy North and South route,
and we will focus specifically on the route North of Queen St.
In this section of the Bathurst 511 route, the streetcar passes
an elementary and high school, a hospital, a residential zone,
a funeral home and several churches. There are 18 stops,
none of which have islands for passengers to exit onto. These
stops vary from large intersections with stoplights (12), to
mid-block stops (5) [11]. 13 600 passengers ride this route
each week-day [3] and the safety of these passengers is of
critical importance. Within this region, there is a large need
to develop a system which ensures the safety of the passengers
exiting the streetcar by notifying drivers in the curb-lane of
the impending exit, before the passengers are able to exit.
Figure 2: A typical 511 streetcar
3.0 - Ways the TTC addresses the problem currently:
At the present time, the TTC is very aware of the safety issues associated with the
current exiting system. It has four solutions already in place to deal with the issue:
physical barriers, the driver alert system, the awareness campaign, and the replacement
plan. These solutions however cost too much, to be applied everywhere or do not address
the core issue of advanced warning for drivers.

3.1 – Physical Barriers:

The TTC currently eliminates the unsafe situation through the use of physical
barriers on dedicated streetcar routes and traffic islands. These solutions provide the
passenger with a place to disembark before continuing on to cross the curb lane of traffic.
These solutions will not be affected by the replacement of the existing streetcars by the
new model of LRV. A good example of a dedicated streetcar route is the Spadina
streetcar route (figure 1), where the streetcars have a lane isolated from traffic.
Passengers on a dedicated route always disembark onto an island and are able to wait for
the traffic lights to change before crossing the road. The traffic islands on non-dedicated
routes provide a temporary place for passengers to stand while waiting for the traffic
lights to change and allows safe crossing of the road. The traffic island only is
implemented at intersections with a stoplight.
ESC 102 Praxis 2 3 of 6

The dedicated streetcar route eliminates the safety issue completely, but the cost of
implementation eliminates it as a viable option (the St. Clair streetcar route conversion
was estimated at $65 million [9].) The traffic islands are cheaper than a dedicated route,
but still cost about $7800 per stop [10], only work at intersections with traffic lights,
(67% of stops in our focus region [11]) and would require that the road be widened in
some areas to implement it.

3.2 – Driver Alert System:

The existing driver alert system consists of lights and
signs, which signal to the driver of a passing motor vehicle that
the doors are open and he or she must stop. The lights consist
of one semi-spherical red light, which is 3 inches in diameter
beside the rear doors and one blue light, of similar dimensions,
directly above the doors to alert drivers that the doors are
currently open [11]. There is no time delay between the lights
lighting up and the physical opening of the door. The signs,
located on both rear-facing panels of the front and rear doors,
are reflective and the largest of them is 11in in diameter. These
signs only face drivers when the doors are open. Neither the
lights nor the signs solve the problem because they do not give
time for drivers to react and stop before it is
possible for passengers to disembark. Figure 3.1: The rear doors of a streetcar. Note
the stop signs, the blue light (top) and the red
light in the top left corner of the doors.

3.3 - Awareness campaign:

Figure 3.2 and 3.3: The standard orange 14in reminder sign (left) and the 22in window decal (right)
Cognizant of the need to make drivers more careful and vigilant when passing
streetcars, the TTC came out with an awareness campaign. It has two different fronts:
signs and brochures. On all streetcars there is a 14in wide sign on the right rear side
ESC 102 Praxis 2 4 of 6

(figure 3.2), which informs drivers of their need to stop when the doors are open. Some
streetcars are also fitted with a large (22in wide) decal in the right rear window reminding
drivers to stop when the doors are open (figure 3.3). These signs merely remind drivers
of their obligation to stop when the doors are already open, but do nothing to give drivers
extra warning time.
In the brochures, the TTC publicizes the fines associated with illegally passing a
streetcar, reminds passengers of their responsibility to look before exiting, and gives the
statistics associated with injuries and accidents because of the current problem. This
solution does not go far enough, because it fails to address the lack of warning time for
drivers. It makes the passengers responsible, advising them to “exit or board a streetcar as
if your life depends on it [5]” or else, like the brochure’s slogan says, they may “become
a statistic [5].” This solution takes away from the usability of streetcars, for as Norman
states: usable design must “assume that any error that can be made will be made [8].”
Usable design must also “allow the user to recover from errors [8]”.

3.4 - Replacement Plan:

The TTC plans to replace the existing fleet of streetcars. In the TTC’s RFP for
the new LRVs, section B4 states: “A ‘DO NOT PASS’ decal and flashing lights will be
specified for the rear on the door side of the vehicle to display whenever the door open
circuit is initiated by the Operator and at a pre-determined low speed [12]”. This
requirement is good, because it recognizes the inadequacy of the small signs and lights on
the current streetcars, but does not include a method by which car drivers are given any
advanced notice that passengers are getting off of the streetcar. The second issue with
this solution relates to implementation timing. The new LRVs will only begin to be
phased in starting in 2011, and will not be completely phased in until 2018 [12]. This
leaves three years until the first 24 of 248 [3] streetcars will be replaced. Given the self-
advertised statistics about the safety of the rear doors, a better system needs to be
implemented immediately.

4.0 - Requirements and Constraints

The requirements and constraints for any solution are broken down into three
sections: visibility, alert deployment time and implementation specifications.

4.1 - Visibility
Should the solution notify drivers of the impending exit of passengers with a
visual cue, it must meet the following four requirements regarding how well it can be
seen:
1. It must be visible from at least 20 m behind the streetcar (roughly equivalent
to the 2.5 second distance between two vehicles, travelling at a slowing
approach speed of 13 km/h [14]), where a greater distance of visibility is
better.
2. It must be at or within 0.15m of the average driver’s eye level, 1.05m [15], to
maximize awareness and detection.
3. It must, should there be a light, have a luminance between 70-700 cd/m2 [16],
the optimum building exit sign luminance, where more luminance is better.
ESC 102 Praxis 2 5 of 6

4. It must, should there be no light, have a retroreflective luminance of 70-90

cd/m2 [17], the optimum traffic sign luminance, where more luminance is
better.

4.2 - Alert Deployment Time

The solution must be deployed at least 2.5 seconds before the doors of the
streetcar open, which is the average driver reaction and braking time [18], and take no
more than 3.5 seconds from deployment to having the streetcar doors open, where a time
interval closer to 2.5 seconds is better, as not to delay current streetcar operation in any
way.

4.3 – Implementation Specifications

The six specifications in this section are related to the technical implementation
aspects of the solution.

1. The solution must have a cost for manufacturing, assembling and installing on
all 9 streetcars [13] or on all 18 stops on the route less than the cost of
building islands at all 18 stops [11] on the route - $138 600 (18 islands at
$7600 per island [10]) - where a lower cost is better.
2. The solution must contain a minimal parts count and concur to standard
“design for assembly” guidelines, as outlined in ESC102 course notes [19].
3. The solution must need scheduled maintenance no more than twice a year
(once before the winter, once after the winter), where a longer maintenance
interval is better.
4. The solution must have an anticipated lifespan, to match the lifespan of a
streetcar, 30 years [20], where a greater anticipated lifespan is better.
5. The solution must, should the solution be streetcar-based (incorporated
directly onto the streetcar), be able to be incorporated onto existing streetcars,
and newer model LRVs in the future. Therefore, it must not rely on the
folding-door mechanism of the current streetcars, as the newer LRV models
may have sliding doors instead [21].
6. It must, should the solution be streetcar-based, not exceed the width of current
or future streetcars: 2400mm [22].

5.0 References
[1] Toronto Transit Commision, "Annual Report 2006", 2006,
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/ttc_annual_report_2006.pdf.
[2] Transit Toronto, "The Great Toronto Streetcar Debate", July 15 2007,
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/data/200707150430.shtml.
[3] Toronto Transit Commision, "Operating Statistics," 2006,
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/operatingstatistics2006.pdf.
[4] Toronto Transit Commision, “TTC History,” 2007,
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/history.htm.
[5] “Streetcar Watch: Don’t Become a Statistic,”
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/streetcar_watch.pdf.
ESC 102 Praxis 2 6 of 6

[6] CityNews, "TTC Reminds T.O. Drivers About Passenger Safety," July 15 2007,
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_12894.aspx.
[7] Usablity Proffesionals Association, “What is Usability,”
http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/index.h
tml.
[8] Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York
2002.
[9] Toronto Transit Commision Coupler, “St.Clair West Will see Right-of-Way,”
2004, http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/coupler/0506/ST%20CLAIR%20WEST.htm.
[10] Campaign for Better Transport, “Traffic Reduction Measures,”
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/local_campaigning/online_guides/slowing_traff
ic/get_busy/traffic_calming_measures#refuge.
[11] Personal Data Collection (see design Notebook).
[12] Toronto Transit Commision Report, “Status of Low Floor Light Rail Vehicle
Procurement Project,” September 2007, http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-
comrpt/documents/report/f3360/_conv.htm.
[13] Toronto Transit Commision, “TTC ridership and Cost Statistics for Bus and
Streetcar Routes, ” 2005-2006,
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/ridership_cost_stats_bus_streetcar_05_06.pdf.
[14] Interview with Luc Coillard, “Air Issues: Our Programs,” December 2001,
http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/dpe/travelalternatively/dpe_main_en.asp?air_emp_Bulleti
n_3_dec_01.
[15] T. F. Fwa, The Handbook of Highway Engineering, Boca Raton: CRC Press,
2006.
[16] M. J. Ouellette, “Visibility of exit signs,” Progressive Architecture, pp. 39-42,
July 1993.
[17] T. Schnell, F. Aktan, C. Li, “Traffic sign luminance requirements of nighttime
drivers for symbolic signs,” presented at the Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting, 2004.
[18] “Brake reaction time,” AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, pp. 118-119, 1994.
[19] “Lecture 4 – Design for Assembly,” class notes for ESC102, Department of
Applied Sciences and Engineering, University of Toronto at St. George Campus,
Winter 2008.
[20] G. Sowerby, “Environmental Initiative #28, TTC,” September 14, 2004,
http://gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep14.html.
[21] “Let’s talk LRVs,” Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, Ontario, Int. Rep.,
September 2007.
[22] J. Bow, “Is the next generation already operating in Europe?” November 2006,
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4506.shtml.