Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Divas S.
Active Member
I'm pretty sure New York uses even smaller trains and has more ridership-
what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
ARG1
Senior Member
Very strange comparison. A more apt comparison would be an 8 seater car vs a 6-7 seater car. Yes you can have a lot more with 8 seats but by the time you need it, you probably need a new line anyway.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
New York has worse signal problems than Toronto, Montréal, or even Ottawa. Hopefully, the signals on the Ontario Line will work as advertised. Unless they are the lowest bidder.
From link, dated January, 2020.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Lets just short circuit this nitpick discussion over the particular capacities of the various lines.
What logical reason is there to oppose adding additional capacity to the Ontario Line? Worst case scenario, you've "wasted" a billion dollars ensuring smoother operations of the Ontario Line for decades to come (a line that is 70% will run well; a line that's 90% full will have tons of operational issues). Meanwhile, worst case scenario with an under built Ontario Line is that in the not too distant future, we'll need to spend tens of billions more on further measures to relieve Yonge Line crowding.
The risk factors far favour just building the thing with proper capacity from Day 1.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
You think the Relief Line from Downtown to Sheppard would've cost $22 Billion? Why?
How... the capacity doesn't come from nowhere just because you throw some arbitrary amount of money at it.
The Yonge Line has several compounding factors that are limiting its capacity potential at this point. This problem goes beyond the management of train movements, to include overcrowding at station platforms, and poor passenger circulation at individual stations, increasing train dwell times. This is quite evident if you've ever seen a downtown station at rush hour pre-COVID.
This isn't going to be solved with one or two billion dollars. The implementation of platform screen doors on the busiest stations alone would likely cost more than that. And even then, that doesn't solve the problem of poor passenger circulation increasing dwell times (if passengers can't get on/off a train due to train or platform crowding, they tend to hold the doors open).
There is absolutely no way that building another central rapid transit line would cost one or two billion dollars.
It absolutely does. With a packed train or platform, it's clearly evident that it'll take longer for passengers to get on/off the vehicle. That means the trains wait longer at the stations, which means the number of trains coming thru the station per hour is decreased. You can't just wish these problems away.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I get what you're saying, but I don't think a billion or two dollars would go as far as you think it would.
The TTC and the City are already exploring the installation of platform screen doors on the Yonge Line. However, they've already said that, at a bare minimum, it'll cost well in excess of a billion dollars.
I have no clue how much it would cost to expand the platforms at the stations where there are overcrowded platforms, but it would not be cheap. The expansion of the Yonge Station (Line 2) platform alone is slated to cost over a billion dollars.
We'd also need to look at redesigning the crossover/turnback tracks at our terminal stations, to allow greater throughput. When the Line 1 trains are switching from northbound/southbound tracks, they occupy both tracks, which limits the throughput, headway and capacity of the line. Any other measure to decrease headways is pointless without redesigning these crossover tracks. I don't even know if it is possible to redesign these tracks to allow for decreased headways, and even if it is, that is another very expensive project to be undertaken.
We could end up spending two, three... five billion dollars trying to squeeze more capacity out of the Yonge Line, and even then, there is no guarantee that the infrastructure and passengers will behave in such a way, that it allows the theoretical capacity to be realized.
In any circumstance in which the Ontario Line doesn't have the capacity to effectively relieve the Yonge Line, it will have been cheaper to just build the Ontario Line properly, rather than trying to squeeze more capacity out of the Yonge Line.
rbt
Senior Member
It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.
The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.
Last edited:
JSF-1
Active Member
I believe a lot of the air flow work be completely avoided by using half-height doors. The subway wasn't designed for full height doors and the stations would look terrible and claustrophobic with full height doors. Most cities who do retrofit old "low ceiling" stations like what we have use half heights, while full height doors are left for lines that are designed with them in mind like the OL should be. Outside of the stations on the spadina and vaughan part of the line 1, installing full height doors is more effort then it is worth when a cheaper and more practical solution exists. It sounds like the powers that be have decided to jump at the most expensive option while conveniently ignoring the cheaper solutions; possibly as a way to discredit the idea? This isn't exactly something that doesn't happen here when it comes to transit planning.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
TTC (and Toronto fire) disagrees. Should be noted, the existing ventilation is considered insufficient even without the platform doors.
Walking through the tunnel away from a disabled train (because of a fire on that train) puts the platform floor very close to nose height. The open station doorways in older parts of the system are the primary air-source that gets moved into the tunnel to refresh the air. Platform doors, even half-height, would act as an obstruction to fresh air reaching the heads of evacuating passengers.
The change at Finch (the upgraded station), in addition to stronger ventilation fans, adds inbound airflow vents directly to the tunnel instead of relying on station entrances.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Doesn’t matter if the trains are smaller if they run more of them. After all Vancouver’s 2 carriage RT carries more people a day than Lakeshore East GO train
kamira51
Active Member
I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Depends upon the definition of "better"?
The Toronto Relief Line would have used similar trains as Line 2 & 1. It would have run from Osgoode Station on Line 1 to Pape Station on Line 2. The Relief Line could have been extended later to the north (to Eglinton or Sheppard) and/or to the west (to Exhibition Place and beyond). While the existing Greenwood Yard be used for train storage, a new train yard would be needed for Line 2 in the west end past Kipling Station.
The Ontario Line would use ??? And would be already extended to Eglinton and Exhibition Place. It would need a new train storage yard. Oh yeah, it would have been designed on a Doug Ford paper napkin, so it would be "better" according to Ford Nation.
ARG1
Senior Member
No not really. There were some aspects of the RL that were "better" with a question mark, but overall, at least conceptually, the Ontario Line is smarter. The Routing gives access to a lot more places of interest such as Exhibition and Chinatown, gracing western Old Toronto with Rapid Transit that its sorely needing, plus having a direct connection to the Distillery District is a nice addition. Having a cross-platform connection to the Stouffville and LSE GO lines at East Harbour is also significantly greater and smarter than the 4 story Escalator Ride we would've had with the DRL. There is no reason to have our metros run underground unless its absolutely needed. Finally by running fully automated trains, we are able to run far more flexible service at a far cheaper cost. The only real downside is that the trains will be narrower than the TRs, but considering the benefits of the current allignment, allowing relief of Union Station itself through the connections at East Harbour and Exhibition, I think its worth it.
daniel_kryz
Active Member
Actually, city planners examined the route (in a report) and determined it is much better than the relief line in almost every aspect. The RL's north extension would've probably open in the 2040s, it wasn't planned to connect to the East Harbour station, and wouldn't serve as many riders & developments, so I'm not sure why people are complaining.