Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[robmausser]

I wouldn't call the OL a serious flaw. Two station have significantly shifted in location. Building on top of the railway corridor doesn't make it bad if it can be done. Alignment choices are often political, the RL was chosen to please the city while the OL is to please Ford. Different planners would prioritize on different criteria. Cost will always have the biggest constraint leading to opposition. Nothing is perfect. Queen Street is chosen cause they want a station entrance right in front of Nathan Phillips Square. Ripping up an existent design is probably a bad idea. Ford himself would have no knowledge of transit planning. The idea has to have come from ML themselves.


No one said the line is going to be built with light rail vehicles. A smaller heavy rail would likely be chosen. All the OL initial business case states the train will be smaller than TTC subway train but still much bigger than SkyTrain/Confederation Line with 3.0m width and 100m length trains and a train capacity of 730-850. To put that in reference, the trains should be similar to the 4-car TRs on Sheppard, slightly longer and slightly narrower. The SkyTrain/Confederation Line are in the 500-600 passenger per train range.

There is a flaw through. There expect to achieve 40 trains per hour to carry the same capacity as the TR does with manual operation (OL targets 29,300-34,000 ppdph) but realistically they would hit 35 trains per hour (25,500-29,750 ppdph). Nevertheless, that capacity would still be higher than those SkyTrains/Confederation Line which maxes out around 20,000-21,000 ppdph. So they might need 110m trains to make up the differences. The planned used of screen doors might help.

In summary, yes the OL trains will carry less riders than TR with ATO but no the line is not stupidly under capacity. They aren't the tiny SRT trains!

I wonder how much more expensive making the platforms 120m vs 100m would really be, and possibly appease most peoples capacity concerns.

 

[raptor]

Ontario Line: A world of role models available for subway planners

This story is part of a continuing series on a deeper exploration of the early stages of progress on Toronto’s next subway line. Still in its infancy, with Metrolinx having just released an Initial…

blog.metrolinx.com

 

[sixrings]

Ontario Line: A world of role models available for subway planners

This story is part of a continuing series on a deeper exploration of the early stages of progress on Toronto’s next subway line. Still in its infancy, with Metrolinx having just released an Initial…

blog.metrolinx.com

This isn't a article written by experts without bias. Instead it's an article paid for by the province I'd like an article written by someone without a horse in the race.

 

[mdrejhon]

This isn't a article written by experts without bias. Instead it's an article paid for by the province I'd like an article written by someone without a horse in the race.

That said, I agree with what they said:

“We are not going to be somebody’s demonstration project,”

Ontario Line, built with fully demonstrated technology at reasonable cost. Even if we use smaller trains, I hope we don't shortchange the stations -- we need a bit of lengthening-allowance to be designed-in. I have a bit of concern at permanently capping us at 90M-100M length.

Elsewhere in the world, even smaller trains push an incredible number of people -- you just need to properly design efficiency (many boarding doors, open gangway trains, length, station flows, platform doors, train control, very short dwell).

As a traveller, I've seen some incredible boarding efficiencies "designed-in". They actually exist in various parts of Europe and Asia. I have no doubt that Ontario Line is probably okay with proven smaller-train technologies pushing nearly the ppphpd as Yonge. But they have to really enspouse proper station design principles to prevent a ppphpd weak link. A single weak link prevents 90 second headways. It's going to be very important for Ontario Line to maximize headway efficiency to compensate for smaller trains.

The platform doors allows shorter station dwells because the platform-side doors multiple amber flashing lights (great for me as deafie) kind of interrupt boardings even when people are still impatiently boarding, and both doors simultaneously start closing, more assertively interrupting the boarding flow.

If someone tries to force, that particular platform door sets off a scoldy-scoldy loud alarm chime (that makes you feel like you jeopardized the whole line's safety, although not really, just makes you feel that way). That automatically shames the late-boarder holding doors open. (That, and a published fine too) That promptly enforces compliance by that sheepish late-boarder on their next visit to a subway station.

It's faster to empty an overcrowded platform if you interrupt boardings at prescribed scheduled intervals, knowing the next train is less than 90 seconds away from opening doors (e.g. cadence of 10 second doors-open, 80 seconds-closed, etc). Well-designed platform side doors help do that, so you don't have a crush board delaying train departures nearly as much.

Newer systems now have improved sensors/(or cameras) at every single door, to monitor for stuck people and such, even small humans stuck between two closed doors. The train driver can safely depart crowded platforms at full speed & acceleration, preserving ~90 second headways. Trains are thus not delayed by big platform crowds nearly as much as platforms without platform doors. The peace of mind is important for train drivers, knowing they haven't snagged a human. (Newer designs are now designed to prevent that, even someone stuck between trains and doors). So 90 second headways are nowadays realistic with a properly-engineered subway build.

Several new-build automated/driverless metro systems have headway capabilities ranging from 66 seconds (Lille) to 85 seconds (Paris) to Taipei, Taiwan (Brown Line, 2 minutes) with extremely high punctuality rates. Thusly 90 seconds appears eminently realistic. However, Toronto definitely will need to push the ppphpd frontier for any new line that has any portion that touches the downtown core.

 

[raptor]

This isn't a article written by experts without bias. Instead it's an article paid for by the province I'd like an article written by someone without a horse in the race.

Is there ever any article written by someone without a horse in the race? wake up please. Any article / paper / study is paid for (or sponsored) by someone.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's going to be very important for Ontario Line to maximize headway efficiency to compensate for smaller trains.

Maximizing headway efficiency as a way to avoid sizing the remainder of the hard infrastructure basically meant that you will be using up whatever headroom remaining. It may be less about compensating for smaller trains - but more about compensating for shorter ones (and they should mention Canada Line on that score).

AoD

 

[sixrings]

Is there ever any article written by someone without a horse in the race? wake up please. Any article / paper / study is paid for (or sponsored) by someone.

It must all be a big conspiracy against the good folks in the pc government who are just trying to stop the gravy, be open for business, and be the government for the people.

 

[salsa]

Ontario Line: A world of role models available for subway planners

This story is part of a continuing series on a deeper exploration of the early stages of progress on Toronto’s next subway line. Still in its infancy, with Metrolinx having just released an Initial…

blog.metrolinx.com

Regardless of how one may feel about the OL or Metrolinx, I appreciate that they are looking at other cities for ideas. Up until now the default construction method was "lets just drop a TBM deep underground no matter what the cost or urban environment".

That being said, they should also learn from Vancouver about building stations too small for required capacity. Will they listen?

 

[syn]

This is why we can't have nice things

Generally people realized Sheppard was a political mistake as soon as before it was built, especially the filling in of Eglinton west. I doubt that is going to happen with the relief line. All the numbers show this line isn't a luxury but a necessary. Sheppard on the other hand is a luxury.

Fixed that for you.

I still have no idea why the Ford government can't use their resources and new power to build the DRL as intended.

 

[sixrings]

Regardless of how one may feel about the OL or Metrolinx, I appreciate that they are looking at other cities for ideas. Up until now the default construction method was "lets just drop a TBM deep underground no matter what the cost or urban environment".

That being said, they should also learn from Vancouver about building stations too small for required capacity. Will they listen?

Are they actually looking at other cities for ideas or are they just using that as an excuse to study and delay like they seem to always do. I'm hard on the pcs because of their past. Sure people can change but it will take a long time for me to get their trust after filling in a whole on Eglinton, cutting funding on Sheppard, and not being able to get anything up and running on the bloor extension despite having 2 1/2 terms of conservative mayors while one overlapped with a conservative prime minister. I'm skeptical for a reason.

 

[rbt]

That being said, they should also learn from Vancouver about building stations too small for required capacity. Will they listen?

Vancouver doesn't have an issue with undersized stations; they have an issue there not being a second parallel line 4km to the east of that one.

Small trains are great because you can build much more coverage for the same price as a big train + feeder bus.

 

[Steve X]

I wonder how much more expensive making the platforms 120m vs 100m would really be, and possibly appease most peoples capacity concerns.

Typical TTC platforms are 150m in length for manual operation. The TRs itself are 139m long. With 100m train, possible OL station length could be in the 100-110m range. Of course the stations aren't the only thing that is shorter, the shortage tracks and crossover can be shorter too. This might actually improve terminal turn around time too. A positive for shorter trains.

I think studying other cities and the use of P3 to choose a technology is a wise choice. Clearly the TTC doesn't know what they are doing. ATO being delivered late with no idea if more capacity will actually be created. No one knows how they would improve the turnaround time at terminals making any improve headways impossible. That could mean both RL and OL are potential disasters.

 

[sixrings]

TTC platforms would be 150m in length. The TRs itself are 139m long. Of course the stations aren't the only thing that is shorter, the shortage tracks and crossover can be shorter too. This might actually improve terminal turn around time too. A positive for shorter trains.

I think studying other cities and the use of P3 to choose a technology is a wise choice. Clearly the TTC doesn't know what they are doing. ATO being delivered late with no idea if more capacity will actually be created. No one knows how they would improve the turnaround time at terminals making any improve headways impossible. That could mean both RL and OL are potential disasters.

Listen I am no fan of the TTC but it's hard to blame them for everything when really they are cash strapped. All three levels of government deserve blame. The feds don't want to give money. The province keeps on defering money. And the city refuses to raise taxes. How do you expect anything to be built properly when you're basically begging from three separate places for money. Even when one opens their hand the other two are more often than not closed.

 

[Steve X]

Listen I am no fan of the TTC but it's hard to blame them for everything when really they are cash strapped. All three levels of government deserve blame. The feds don't want to give money. The province keeps on defering money. And the city refuses to raise taxes. How do you expect anything to be built properly when you're basically begging from three separate places for money. Even when one opens their hand the other two are more often than not closed.

Money might not be the issue. They have the same engineering team that would keep designing every line the same way as they have been doing so. They get paid regardless if they come up with a new design or transplant the current design. It has nothing to do with being cash strapped. Then there could be decisions like let's throw the current TRs on the RL and buy new trains for Line 1 that would influence the design process.

 

[sixrings]

Money might not be the issue. They have the same engineering team that would keep designing every line the same way as they have been doing so. They get paid regardless if they come up with a new design or transplant the current design. It has nothing to do with being cash strapped. Then there could be decisions like let's throw the current TRs on the RL and buy new trains for Line 1 that would influence the design process.

Well it's hard for me to take this process seriously when it's are most important transit expansion in 50+ years and it sure looks like we are cheaping out while we over built (under pcs) on Sheppard and are planning to over build again (under pcs) on the rt conversion.