Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

innsertnamehere said:
I largely don't disagree with your first paragraph.. I'm just saying the fight isn't here to squeeze a few benefits out, it's over there to stop the bleeding.

The Yonge line has a capacity of about 32,000 PPHD right now as they are running 29 trains in peak hour, so 29x1,100= 31,900. That's at the very least the same ballpark as the Ontario Line. Even if the Ontario line ends up slightly lower, it'll be in the same ballpark. That in reality is a huge amount of throughput - the majority of metro networks on the planet don't reach that level of demand. There are probably only a handful of subway lines globally that have that level of ridership.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except the capacity of Yonge isn't close-ended at 32K pphpd - it can go up to 40K pphpd and this is achieved by, among other things, leveraging on legacy builds. Given current development trends and existing latent demand I suspect it will get to that. This "flex" is worth something - and if it isn't eye-poppingly expensive to achieve, we should attempt it.

As to global comparators - I came from a locale with far, far higher level of heavy metro ridership - what we are talking about would get laughed out of town.

AoD
 
Last edited:
warrens said:
Where has this been done successfully before in a transit application at scale? Toronto should not be a test-bed for unproven ideas.
Click to expand...
In Hong Kong, the station at Sai Ying Pun has high-speed elevators installed. The population density there easily rivals, if not surpasses, anything built along the OL corridor. It works very well. But these elevators were installed because of the topography of the area - it was built deep into the side of a mountain.
 
Last edited:
Nadnev said:
In Hong Kong, the station at Sai Ying Pun has high-speed elevators installed. The population density there easily rivals, if not surpasses, anything built along the OL corridor. It works very well. But these elevators were installed because of the topography of the area - it was built deep into the side of a mountain.
Click to expand...

They are building an elevator system for the Édouard-Montpetit station on the REM, so using it in Toronto won't be a first for Canada. But that is not the point. Stations like Gerard were not planned to have that kind of system. Only a bunch of escalators that would have taken the same amount of time to climb as it would to take the subway from King to College.


AlvinofDiaspar said:
Yeah, except the capacity of Yonge isn't close-ended at 32K pphpd - it can go up to 40K pphpd and this is achieved by, among other things, leveraging on legacy builds. Given current development trends and existing latent demand I suspect it will get to that. This "flex" is worth something - and if it isn't eye-poppingly expensive to achieve, we should attempt it.

As to global comparators - I came from a locale with far, far higher level of heavy metro ridership - what we are talking about would get laughed out of town.

AoD
Click to expand...

This "flex" might not exist. Steve Munro casts down on the Line 1's ability to reach more than 36K pphpd. Edit: Misread. This should be 40K.

From Steve Munro, 2018
The most important change in line capacity will be the introduction of Automatic Train Control (ATC) and an increase in the scheduled service to at least 30 trains/hour. This would take the design capacity up to 33k/hour. A further increase to 33 trains/hour would get the line up to about 36k. This is the TTC’s current target. In the past, claims were made for a possible 40 trains/hour service with a capacity in the 45k/hour range, but this is not physically possible on the Toronto system.
Click to expand...

He claims it is not physically possible to have trains much more frequently than 36 trains/h (39,600K). Even though Line 1 will basically have the same ATC as the Ontario line (minus the PSD and automatic station departure.) This ceiling will be hit regardless of how much capacity the Ontario Line will have as it will hit it way before the OL is expected to fill it.

This will trigger the need for another downtown relief line.

But the point is that the Ontario Line will not be under capacity for a long enough time that we will be able to start building other lines when we get to that.
 
Last edited:
NoahB said:
He claims it is not physically possible to have trains much more frequently than 36 trains/h (39,600K). Even though Line 1 will basically have the same ATC as the Ontario line (minus the PSD and automatic station departure.) This ceiling will be hit regardless of how much capacity the Ontario Line will have as it will hit it way before the OL is expected to fill it.
Click to expand...

40K is 25% over existing capacity - at some point you will hit a limit, but that's over 10K more to play with, and I consider that to be a plus for a system with bones 75 years old. Can OL with presumed 100M platforms say that it can do the same, with the max achieved via 40 tph? Keep in mind, the current ~30K figure is not necessarily the original design capacity for Yonge either.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Isn't the problem with elevators throughput? It's hard to beat the throughput of escalators (6k people per hour). You would need half a dozen to a dozen high capacity elevators to match that.
 
afransen said:
Isn't the problem with elevators throughput? It's hard to beat the throughput of escalators (6k people per hour). You would need half a dozen to a dozen high capacity elevators to match that.
Click to expand...
REM's developers claim their Édouard-Montpetit station elevator system can handle 5000 people per hour. (I assume all directions combined)

AlvinofDiaspar said:
40K is 25% over existing capacity - at some point you will hit a limit, but that's over 10K more to play with, and I consider that to be a plus for a system with bones 75 years old. Can OL with presumed 100M platforms say that it can do the same, with the max achieved via 40 tph? Keep in mind, the current ~30K figure is not necessarily the original design capacity for Yonge either.

AoD
Click to expand...

It is a huge plus and has been invaluable 75 years later. But it took 60-ish years (1990s, before falling again) to reach capacity. Many cities just built other lines and expanded their coverage by doing so. Toronto can start doing that now that attitudes about transit have changed.

I would love it if the gov would build it with the highest future capacity possible. But if they can use the cost-saving excuse to finally start building it now, they can finally build the 100-year-old line. After that everyone can shift their focus to new lines. It would probably be Shepherd East + another relief line/OL Extention in the 2030s once the media realizes that the Yonge line actually will reach capacity again by 2040. St George will reach critical capacity in that time span. A western relief line could become a big focus.
 
NoahB said:
REM's developers claim their Édouard-Montpetit station elevator system can handle 5000 people per hour. (I assume all directions combined)



It is a huge plus and has been invaluable 75 years later. But it took 60-ish years (1990s, before falling again) to reach capacity. Many cities just built other lines and expanded their coverage by doing so. Toronto can start doing that now that attitudes about transit have changed.

I would love it if the gov would build it with the highest future capacity possible. But if they can use the cost-saving excuse to finally start building it now, they can finally build the 100-year-old line. After that everyone can shift their focus to new lines. It would probably be Shepherd East + another relief line/OL Extention in the 2030s once the media realizes that the Yonge line actually will reach capacity again by 2040. St George will reach critical capacity in that time span. A western relief line could become a big focus.
Click to expand...

How have those attitudes changed?

The resistance to building this line with foresight seems to indicate otherwise.

We need maximum capacity on this line now.
 
syn said:
How have those attitudes changed?

The resistance to building this line with foresight seems to indicate otherwise.

We need maximum capacity on this line now.
Click to expand...

You've got 4 subway projects committed by a conservative provincial government, with 39.9km of rapid transit and about 32 stations, that are (almost) all targeted to be built within the next 10 years. That's on top of continuous (albeit incremental) construction to upgrade and add hundreds of kilometres of commuter rail up to a modern standard. You've also got suburbs voting and fighting to get LRTs built. (Cambridge, Hamilton*, Mississauga, Brampton*)

I think that is a significant amount of committed work that most voters approve of and will continue to vote for.

*RIP
 
Last edited:
.. The relief line gerrad station had to be deep to get the carlaw interceptor, a large sewage pipe. This problem only came up when the alignment was shifted to Carlaw because Pape south of the tracks was too narrow. With the narrower Ontario Line trains - the row might be wide enough if they had decided to bury, a meaning a shallower Gerrard station. Also - if they kept the tracks south of the corridor they could still theoretically put it back underground.
 
Kitsune said:
.. The relief line gerrad station had to be deep to get the carlaw interceptor, a large sewage pipe. This problem only came up when the alignment was shifted to Carlaw because Pape south of the tracks was too narrow. With the narrower Ontario Line trains - the row might be wide enough if they had decided to bury, a meaning a shallower Gerrard station. Also - if they kept the tracks south of the corridor they could still theoretically put it back underground.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Didn't consider that. Too bad they probably skipped restudying an underground alignment as soon as the plan was switched.
 
NoahB said:
This "flex" might not exist. Steve Munro casts down on the Line 1's ability to reach more than 36K pphpd. Edit: Misread. This should be 40K.

From Steve Munro, 2018


He claims it is not physically possible to have trains much more frequently than 36 trains/h (39,600K). Even though Line 1 will basically have the same ATC as the Ontario line (minus the PSD and automatic station departure.) This ceiling will be hit regardless of how much capacity the Ontario Line will have as it will hit it way before the OL is expected to fill it.

This will trigger the need for another downtown relief line.

But the point is that the Ontario Line will not be under capacity for a long enough time that we will be able to start building other lines when we get to that.
Click to expand...
This is not because of any limitations with the TR rolling stock, or the system that exists today. This is because of the terminal layout at Finch station. The crossover design, blind trip, the distance of the crossover from the terminus, and crew change limitations are what is preventing higher capacities. You have to rebuild the crossover in a closer location, and perhaps automate the turnback system...yes, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.
 
Reecemartin said:
Also, lets *please* not forget how loud streetcars can be especially on corners. A train travelling on a relatively gentle curve does not shriek.
Click to expand...
They really aren't that loud, at least the CLRVs weren't. The noises have different characteristics. I'd argue a streetcar's wheel squeal, while not appealing, is more appealing than a subway wheel squeal. Only time will tell how the OL behaves along curves, but nothing a little flange grease can't fix.
 
Reecemartin said:
Sure but OL is way less for what we have seen is likely <10% less capacity. And it will not be full on day one, people are not all railfans riding the new line for fun.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned at all about OL being full on day one; that won't happen. The concern is that the line isn't future-proof enough.

Regarding the capacity, I can happily live with it only losing 10% compared to the traditional TTC design. However, if the OL trains are 15% shorter and 15% narrower than TR trains, then they can't have 90% of the TR capacity unless some kind of spatial magic is involved. (1 - 0.15) x (1 - 0.15) = 0.85 x 0.85 = 0.72, or 28% capacity loss.

And I get it that the lower capacity of one train can be compensated by running the trains more frequently. But the TRs can run more frequently as well, after the signal system overhaul and maybe adding some exists and widening some of the existing exits. That's a nontrivial investment, but a lot cheaper than building the next line.

For TRs, or any trains of similar size (no need to get fixated on the TTC's current equipment), frequency improvements with capacity growth is a future opportunity. On the contrary, the stated design maximum for OL will remain the maximum forever, because the greatest physically possible frequency is already counted in.

I hardly can imagine a situation where the ultimate capacity isn't nearly proportional to the train's floor area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top