Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Except it's literally incorrect, the system in Vancouver has room to grow. It's also the case that you can extend platforms in the future, it's something much of the world does!

Sure - but the ability to extend platforms requires forethought. OL will have to demonstrate how they will be able to do it in their plans, specifically at underground and track level stations.

AoD

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The craziest thing is the whole "light metro is proprietary" talk, SkyTrain is certainly unique, but systems that we are actually building these days (new systems) are not proprietary. Look at a system like Dubai, they have changed rolling stock vendors since they opened without any issue. Traction motors and doors are traction motors and doors.

This isn't an issue exclusive with Light Metro and can happen with literally any mode. Heavy rail, we have trains running on TTC gauge like our own subway, as well as the Lagos Metro that is literally buying off our old rolling stock. We have Metros with Rubber Tyres, Metros with tight curves that require absolutely tiny segments (Chicago). There are also a ton of gadgetbahn type metros around the world that try to do their own thing. The term "Light Metro" isn't a specifier of technology, all it is is a specification of service type, which is fully grade separated rail service that usually runs lower capacity rolling stock usually in exchange for supporting higher frequencies. How this is done is mostly up to the manufacturer, and the type of technology you use to run your light metro is just that, a choice of technology. Some cities like Vancouver invested into this new and up and coming ICTS technology, which is definitely strange and bespoke, but there are many systems around the world that use it so to say it will be abandoned anytime soon is baseless fearmongering.

Looking at what's happening in Honolulu, its difficult to call that a unique issue with Light Metros. Instead this just looks like another list in a long list of incompetent decisions done by the design and engineering team. If we are going to look at cities that mess up transit and point out their failures as proof that a certain type of mode or service type can't work, we can be here all day. "LRT is bad and prone to endless problems - just look at what happened in Ottawa!"

Now let's read through what this guy from Vancouver has to say:

Unless you're using a bespoke technology, no not really, and its hard to say LRT is any way more compatible. Even in the realms of LRT you often have major differences between cities ranging anywhere between different railway gauges to odd loading gauges, and in many cases you still have newer LRT systems like in Sydney that use conduit electrification.

Except they do and they have for a long time. Before 2016, the Millenium line was just a looping branch of the Expo Line, so all of these coupled sets ran on most of the length of the Expo Line without any issues, and coupled sets still run on the Expo Line proper.

Extremely unlikely. There are still many cities in the world that use this technology, including the NYC Airtrain, the Beijing Airport Express, a good chunk of the Kuala Lumpur metro system, and several more in Japan. ICTS isn't going to be dropped as a supported technology any time soon.

[Citation Needed]

TransLink is "well aware" of this, which is why they and the NDP just released their 2050 transit plan, with the main plan involving building a ton of new skytrain lines and extensions. View attachment 318831

Also, the Broadway subway won't get a single car off the road? Massive claims with more citations needed.

Even if that was true, the primary goal of the Broadway subway is to relieve the 99-Bline, which is the busiest bus route in both the US and Canada, that, alongside the fact that its the first phase of an extension to the biggest university in the province, and will connect the main skytrain system with the Canada Line outside of Waterfront adding far more redundancy to the Skytain network.

I really have to question this source's background and claims.

How about we just use the rockets, and not spend money and time on an MSF and yet another vehicle standard. That's the problem. We have streetcars, LRT, and subway already. We are retiring light metro in Scarborough, we don't need another light metro vehicle.

 

[syn]

Ultimately, it should be pretty obvious we were not getting the OL with TR stock, because it would probably cost at least 1.7-2x as much. Having relief far sooner is better than putting all our money on one line that was never going to fix crowding on Yonge entirely anyways. It is also a legitimately good opportunity to show us that we can build cheaper and faster by going elevated and not insisting on the same rolling stock on every line (very few subway systems use a single rolling stock standard for good reason), there's a reason trains the size of the OL ones have become popular even in massive cities like Shanghai and Seoul.

The OL is not and can not be the last line we build in Toronto and it cannot be the last line we build to downtown. Showing us that we can do more, more quickly and for less is incredibly valuable.

Again, very strange reasoning.

I don't think it would cost 2x as much...and the extra investment would be more than worth it. This is the first new line running downtown in about half a century. Using artificial scarcity as a reason to cut it's capacity is incredibly foolish.

What happens when (as @TheTigerMaster pointed out) we have the same problem again in short order?

The OL is not and can not be the last line we build in Toronto and it cannot be the last line we build to downtown. Showing us that we can do more, more quickly and for less is incredibly valuable.

Where will this other line go?

 

[superelevation]

Higher capacity does not necessitate TR rolling stock, and you wouldn't see anything near a doubling of cost using higher capacity vehicles.



A higher capacity OL with an extension to Sheppard absolutely would have "fixed" Yonge Line crowding for the foreseeable future. Demand would have been driven down to about 20,000 pphpd with an ultimate capacity of about 35,000 pphpd on Yonge Line.

Of course it does not, but I have not really seen discussion about just using longer trains (can't go much wider), it's always just that they should use standard TTC Subway trains.


The graph of when we need to build another line is linear. More capacity today pushes that back a few years, we could use more lines and 30,000 ppdph is not small. I truly see building more lines as a thing we should be aiming for.

 

[superelevation]

How about we just use the rockets, and not spend money and time on an MSF and yet another vehicle standard. That's the problem. We have streetcars, LRT, and subway already. We are retiring light metro in Scarborough, we don't need another light metro vehicle.

The Rockets are not very good trains, and as everyone seems to forget, Greenwood cannot be used for open gangway trains at the moment anyway. There is very little benefit to using the exact same train, but plenty of disbenefit.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's also the case that you can extend platforms in the future, it's something much of the world does!

That is completely unknowable at this point. MX has made no provisions for platform extensions in their OL plans.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The Rockets are not very good trains, and as everyone seems to forget, Greenwood cannot be used for open gangway trains at the moment anyway. There is very little benefit to using the exact same train, but plenty of disbenefit.

There is little benefit to using light metro which is people's chief complaint. It's true that the rockets are overrated, but it's what we have.

How will you feel when MX proposes using the LRT vehicles for this? Because that could likely happen.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The graph of when we need to build another line is linear. More capacity today pushes that back a few years, we could use more lines and 30,000 ppdph is not small. I truly see building more lines as a thing we should be aiming for.

We can aim for it all we want, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

 

[superelevation]

That is completely unknowable at this point. MX has made no provisions for platform extensions in their OL plans.

If it was unknowable you could not say for a certainty that it could not be done, even if there is a curve directly after a station it is possible. We just don't know how to do these things these days, old systems have had this done frequently, even ones that have had CBTC retrofitted.

There is little benefit to using light metro which is people's chief complaint. It's true that the rockets are overrated, but it's what we have.

How will you feel when MX proposes using the LRT vehicles for this? Because that could likely happen.

There is not little benefit, with panto and better perf characteristics it can perform better on elevated and outdoor right of ways, and it won't leave us beholden to the old and bad TTC stock.

They are not going to use LRT stock, it has been said so many times including by Metrolinx - so not it could not "likely" happen.

 

[KhalilHeron]

There is little benefit to using light metro which is people's chief complaint. It's true that the rockets are overrated, but it's what we have.

How will you feel when MX proposes using the LRT vehicles for this? Because that could likely happen.

LRV doesn't actually mean anything substantial. Many people would call the vehicles on REM LRV's when they are likely the sort of vehicles we are going to get on the OL. If you mean LRVs like the ones we're getting for lines 5 and 6, well that's just not gonna happen. Projects in Ontario have gotten stuck with LRV's when systems were upgraded to more metro style systems like the crosstown and confederation line, not tacked onto existing metro projects to cut costs, which it wouldn't really do anyways.

 

[superelevation]

We can aim for it all we want, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

And the alternative to OL was to aim to extend the RLS North, for all we know we could have waited a decade for that to happen, certainly a worse outcome if you want relief.

 

[superelevation]

LRV doesn't actually mean anything substantial. Many people would call the vehicles on REM LRV's when they are likely the sort of vehicles we are going to get on the OL. If you mean LRVs like the ones we're getting for lines 5 and 6, well that's just not gonna happen. Projects in Ontario have gotten stuck with LRV's when systems were upgraded to more metro style systems like the crosstown and confederation line, not tacked onto existing metro projects to cut costs, which it wouldn't really do anyways.

LRV does mean something. LRV's are street running capable units that are self contained, the REM cars are not LRVs.

 

[ssiguy2]

This is a McDonalds style order to fix a massive problem. Clearly not perfect at all. Capacity will be a problem depending on the vehicles. They need to move off the monorail style vehicles ford wants, that would relive a lot of concerns. Also the exhibition/ontario place stop isn't a great idea at all. There is still a lot of time to change all this.

These are NOT monorail style trains.

First, monorail is exactly that 'mono" {aka one} rail unlike SkyTrain, LRT, or subways.
Second, monorails like in Sao Paulo and Chongquin have standard subway/Metro dimensions. They both have capacities of over 35,000 PPHPD.

As far as the term "light Metro", there really is no such thing per se. They just use this term loosely to refer to Metros that are built with lower capacity ie smaller trains and stations but it has NOTHING to do with the actual technology. The McCanada Line is considered a 'light Metro" yet it uses standard 3rd rail subway cars.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That is completely unknowable at this point. MX has made no provisions for platform extensions in their OL plans.

If it was unknowable you could not say for a certainty that it could not be done, even if there is a curve directly after a station it is possible. We just don't know how to do these things these days, old systems have had this done frequently, even ones that have had CBTC retrofitted.

You can not say for certain that it can be done. Perhaps MX should do their due diligence and make sure capacity enhancements are possible before throwing $11 Billion down the drain. Or, you know, they could just build the thing right the first time, and save us the time and greater expense.

 

[syn]

And the alternative to OL was to aim to extend the RLS North, for all we know we could have waited a decade for that to happen, certainly a worse outcome if you want relief.

Why?

Why couldn't the government simply do what they said they'd do and build it as quickly as possible?