TheTigerMaster
Superstar
It won't make the Sheppard Subway any more useful as the southbound Yonge Line will be overcapacity
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
It won't make the Sheppard Subway any more useful as the southbound Yonge Line will be overcapacity
jje1000
Senior Member
Wouldn't those require wider footprints? Personally don't think they'll be used in a dense urban environment-, we'll probably see island platforms instead.
I would say that automation definitely could be one of the keys to this strange puzzle- could we also see driverless trains and full platform doors on Day 1?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Automation isn't going to solve the capacity problem because automation isn't the bottleneck. The bottleneck is conflicting train movements at terminals, and high station utilization rates slowing down trains. Any proposal that doesn't address these two issues is BS
asher__jo
Active Member
My point is it'll make it more useful if the relief line intersects with Sheppard, where foreseeably people take the line from Richmond Hill, and transfer to take the relief line.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Ah, fair enough
BurlOak
Senior Member
The map shows a faint Spadina Front station. Is the for LSE or for Kitchener GO? If the latter, it would be nice to have a connection there.
BurlOak
Senior Member
out yourself back 50 years.
what if we built Y-B station with 3 platforms. Every other station as is.
we'd thank them.
44 North
Senior Member
Not really true. North and west extensions were always in the longer term plans going back a decade. RL North was given to the Prov (which they largely kept under wraps then abandoned after the election). And alternate routing options were always considered. It was pretty broad, multi-stepped, drawn-out, and boiled down in the route of RLS. This incl diff corridor combinations, GO lines, and bridges. Also it wasn't just Planning, but a joint project with TTC. And even in the last RL report before being shuttered it was made clear that going forward the rolling stock would be either conventional subway or intermediate capacity subway.
What we have now is a fantasy doodle, and it will send us back years to re-plan everything. And that's being hopeful that it will continue going forward.
This is true to an extent. But many of the issues with upping capacity on an older line built ad hoc since the 50s I think shouldn't hold true for a line built in the 21st C. No question capacity issues shouldn't be a concern. However with computer modelling of passenger flows, fire codes, simple learning of past mistakes, I think the issues of achieving very high frequencies + very high capacity + smaller trains/platforms are all doable.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
2075? Try 2035. Because if this thing is built with a capacity of 20,000 pphpd, we're not going to have any capacity for beyond that date.
I better not hear any complaints when in 20 years we "discover" that we need to spend $20 Billion on a Relief Line 2, because we were too cheap to spend another $2 Billion to build the Relief Line 1 with capacity for future growth. This Ontario Line is textbook definition of penny wise, dollar foolish.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You're putting way too much faith in computer models. The type of models you describe are fraught with error, and not the kind of thing we should be betting $11 Billion on.
If population growth is a bit more than expected, if growth distribution around the city is a bit off, if pedestrians behave in an unexpected way, we've now made a tremendously expensive mistake. Never mind that individuals and society as a whole are tremendously unpredictable; nobody 20 years ago (heck, not even 10 years ago) would've predicted the explosive growth of Downtown Toronto, let alone the capacity constraints
and passenger flows in individual stations.
What do we do if East Harbour ends up hosting 60% more employment in 2031, resulting in way more crowding at the station than we anticipate? In that case, the headways of the line will be forever constrained due to the modeling being wrong, and no error tolerance built into the design.
Think of it this way: If the models are absolutely perfect, we've saved $2 Billion. If they're a bit wrong, we're not spending $10 Billion+ on a second relief line. High risk, and low reward.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
There is nothing in this post, nothing, zero, nada and squat that is not untrue.
I would say you know better and are lying, but that would be unparliamentary of me..........so instead I'll simply assume this is the latest in a long line of posts that demonstrate your contemptible level of ignorance of just about everything.
I will reiterate, whether you are willfully posting false information, or simply too obtuse to know better, kindly stop wasting the time of people who actually care about the truth and the value of debating with sound facts.
Stop posting here. Forever. Go somewhere that people value nonsense and BS, I'm sure there's a Ford-lovers site for you somewhere.
I am happy to have discussions and read posts from any and all political perspectives; so long as they have some pretense to the truth. Sadly, your posts make no such contribution here.
Last edited:
syn
Senior Member
I honestly wonder at times if "Burloak" is some sort of parody account.
smallspy
Senior Member
50 years wouldn't even take you back to the construction, nevermind planning, of the Yonge Line.
But thanks for playing.
Dan
Steve X
Senior Member
We still don't know what kind of trains or the line capacity ML is aiming for. All I read in the last two pages is small trains and therefore they can't handle a load.
We don't know what is the length of the train. They could have gone with narrower trains (like Montreal) and longer trains to make up for the capacity. Thus they can handle tighter curves. With GO connection on both sides and a possibility of relieving the GO network, the capacity might not be that low.
As for a northern extension beyond Eglinton, the idea isn't dead unless they come up with low capacity trains. This might be a possible replacement for the Richmond Hill GO train line. Let's hope ML's forecasting isn't that bad.
We don't know what is the length of the train. They could have gone with narrower trains (like Montreal) and longer trains to make up for the capacity. Thus they can handle tighter curves. With GO connection on both sides and a possibility of relieving the GO network, the capacity might not be that low.
As for a northern extension beyond Eglinton, the idea isn't dead unless they come up with low capacity trains. This might be a possible replacement for the Richmond Hill GO train line. Let's hope ML's forecasting isn't that bad.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The benefit of narrower trains is narrower tunnels, which lowers tunnelling costs. However, narrower trains means that to maintain capacity, trains needs to be longer. Longer trains means longer station boxes, and stations are by far the most expensive component of any subway extension.
It’s a pretty safe bet that the costs of longer station boxes would thus erase any savings from having narrower trains and tunnels.
Remember, tunnel boring is the relatively cheap part of subway construction, and accordingly any savings from narrower tunnels will be relatively small. The 10 km of twinned tunnels for Line 5 cost just $500 million; a single station nowadays costs anywhere from $200 Million up to $500 Million for extremely complex stations
There’s no magic bullet solution here guys