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

In other parts of the world, they put up barriers to separate pedestrians from the right-of-way. Could be a fence or a simple chain barrier.

land-10-00375-g018.png
From link.
 
robmausser said:
That is third rail tech in the middle, however that technology won't work here, it fails with even the slightest bit of ice/snow.
Click to expand...

Very true, Toronto doesn't have the climate for it.

What many cities now do is simply run on battery when going thru more historic or pedestrian heavy areas. It rids the area of the ugly overhead wires. It's becoming very common and in fact the new nearby Detroit Streetcar is 100% battery as is Charlottes. They are very common in Europe {ie Venice} where they don't the wires making a mess of their beautiful and historic districts. In the case of the OL & Queen, it's also one less piece of infrastructure that has to be rebuilt.

Eventually all the streetcars in Toronto {and probably everywhere else} will rid themselves of these ugly and expensive to build & maintain overhead wires and be replaced by battery streetcars/trams as they no longer serve a purpose.

It would be wonderful for Toronto to have a street ;like Sydney's George but only if they don't allow more damn bike lanes.
 
There have also been advances in wireless power transfer using induction for both stationary and moving vehicles that could have some applicability. Probably too costly to use for an entire line but an option for portions of a line with aesthetic considerations. Probably simpler to include a relatively small battery pack, though to bridge that area.
 
fanoftoronto said:
Ohh boyy, what I would give for such streets in Downtown Toronto. Does the LRT pictured here also run on 3rd rail technology embedded between the tracks? There are so many good things in this picture! Add in bike lanes and it would make such a street even better!

Where is this, might I ask?
Click to expand...
Looks dangerous and impractical.
 
MichelleBrozovic said:
Looks dangerous and impractical.
Click to expand...
You're partially correct. The 3rd rail system here is Alstom's APS system. Basically its a set of consecutive 11m long conduits that can be switched on and off at any given time. In Layman's terms, the only time the conduit is powered is when there is a tram directly over it - as such the system is completely safe.

In terms of practicality however, yeah you're right. The only real benefit to this system is the fact that you don't have to deal with "ugly wires". It is generally more expensive, and it is Alstom's proprietary technology. This specific line actually uses pantographs for the most part, its only the section between the Circular Quay (the terminus at the waterfront) and Town Hall Stations that has this APS system, because NIMBYism basically.
 
From going through the EA, one thing that I'm not a fan of is they are keeping the deep station design for Queen and Osgoode stations. These are going to be very busy interchange stations and the current plan has passengers going through 4 sets of escalators/stairs to get from Line 1 to the OL and vice versa. They should keep interchange stations as bi-level designs to maximize speed and convenience of transfer from one to the other. This is actually even worse than the transfer from the BD subway at Kennedy to the SRT.

Was there any reason given for this design decision?

Here is the rendering from one of the open houses for Queen Station:
1649774509181.png
 
W. K. Lis said:
In other parts of the world, they put up barriers to separate pedestrians from the right-of-way. Could be a fence or a simple chain barrier.

From link.
Click to expand...

Something we desperately need to do with the new 509 route along the waterfront. Even a small black metal fence, bollards with chain, plant some gardens, a glass barrier. Anything.
 
fanoftoronto said:
100% this! Keep the streetcar tracks, expand the sidewalk to include bike lanes on both sides.

We can only fantasize about having such a street through the core downtown!
Click to expand...

I actually advocated for King and Queen to be 100% carless transit mall streets with bike lanes and large sidewalks and to leave Adelaide and Richmond for cars, without bike lanes.

They did it backwards in my opinion.
 
EnviroTO said:
Don't these numbers defy logic? Capacity is a function of train capacity and frequency with some upper limits related to station capacity. Everything I have seen indicates a platform length that is shorter than YUS by a third, and a train that is not as wide. The one redeeming quality is platform with and second sets of vertical circulation which should reduce dwell... but dwell ties into max frequency.

If the Ontario line train's capacity per length is equal to YUS then an Ontario Line train needs to arrive at a frequency 33% less. So if the YUS arrives every 2 min, the OL needs to arrive every 80 seconds. However, how can the capacity of the OL train be the same capacity per length? TTC subway cars are massive, both very wide and very long. Coupling / articulation points reduce capacity. To get the same capacity into smaller cars would require removing seats and turning the thing into a mosh pit... which you could do on the YUS.

It doesn't make sense to me and I will believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

The original business case has the OL using 100m trains with 29,300 pphpd with trains running every 90 seconds. That assumes 730 people per train (the same observed passengers per square metre currently observed on the subway).

The standard TTC Rocket was estimated to carry nearly 40,000 pphpd based on the same real-world observed capacity.

That's a very significant difference.

We should be building more downtown subways, and should've some time ago - but that doesn't excuse not building this to full capacity (all while reducing capacity on the GO corridor).
 
syn said:
The original business case has the OL using 100m trains with 29,300 pphpd with trains running every 90 seconds. That assumes 730 people per train (the same observed passengers per square metre currently observed on the subway).

The standard TTC Rocket was estimated to carry nearly 40,000 pphpd based on the same real-world observed capacity.

That's a very significant difference.

We should be building more downtown subways, and should've some time ago - but that doesn't excuse not building this to full capacity (all while reducing capacity on the GO corridor).
Click to expand...
The difference is that the OL will be able to reach 90 second frequencies and the TR tech will only be able to do 120.
30k PPHD is also not a low capacity line, at all. It's much higher than what line 1 delivers in terms of capacity today. It's just not what a TR train can achieve when fully maxed out, which is very, very high capacity.

For the OL to overload at 30k PPHD it would have to be in the top 3 busiest subway lines on the continent. It's a ton of capacity.

The question isn't if the TR could deliver more passenger space, it obviously can, it's a question of scaling the build to what is actually realistically needed. Metrolinx could just as easily spec the line out to accommodate 200m long OL metro trains and be able to run the line at 60,000 PPHD - but why would it need to? The line will be at 50% of design capacity at opening day. It's not a binary choice, it's choosing a level of capacity that's actually needed. There is a reason Metrolinx isn't even planning on running 100m trains for the first 20-30 years.

Many here seem to think that they should be building the line with TR trains for the additional capacity, but it's not really needed. And that's the whole point of this discussion, building that extra capacity would increase project costs massively for capacity that won't be required, maybe, until 2 generations from now. There are simply too many variables between then and now for that to be an assured investment.
 
Last edited:
fanoftoronto said:
From going through the EA, one thing that I'm not a fan of is they are keeping the deep station design for Queen and Osgoode stations. These are going to be very busy interchange stations and the current plan has passengers going through 4 sets of escalators/stairs to get from Line 1 to the OL and vice versa. They should keep interchange stations as bi-level designs to maximize speed and convenience of transfer from one to the other. This is actually even worse than the transfer from the BD subway at Kennedy to the SRT.

Was there any reason given for this design decision?

Here is the rendering from one of the open houses for Queen Station:
View attachment 392207
Click to expand...
Would people actually be transferring at Queen or Osgoode stations? Wouldn't the blocks around the stations be the final destination for most?

1649776676123.png


From link.

There should be underground passages that lead to both the Ontario Line and Line 1 stations from the surrounding building. In fact, the PATH could be expanded to include currently unconnected buildings. For example, they could add underground passages to and from St. Michael's Hospital, maybe even bypassing Line 1 and going directly to the Ontario Line stations.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The difference is that the OL will be able to reach 90 second frequencies and the TR tech will only be able to do 120.
30k PPHD is also not a low capacity line, at all. Just not TR, which is very, very high capacity.

For the OL to overload at 30k PPHD it would have to be in the top 3 busiest subway lines on the continent. It's a ton of capacity.
Click to expand...

The IBC is based on a max of 36 trains per hour.

It is not low capacity. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's a lot lower than the other solution though, and we clearly need the highest capacity possible. There is also a cost to using GO corridor capacity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top