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

[sixrings]

I have no problem with slightly narrower cars or sideway seating (fairly trainset agnostic) even - what I do have an issue with is highballing capacity assumptions to size the hard infrastructure - the latter is what you can't change cheaply.

AoD

I prefer side facing seating. It's not the greatest aesthetically but I hate how too often on our subway cars people who sit forward in the two seating arrangement manage to put their purses or bags on the seat next to them basically reducing capacity. It's much more difficult to be rude on a side facing seat. I love them in NYC.

 

[syn]

ML won't be the one implementing this.

Then who's implementing it?

They'll just hire the industry to analyse what they want and get a line that fits (or not fit). Based on history, TTC really screwed up the TYSSE and cannot be trusted to implement the RL either. Delivered late and over budget.

I think it's obvious at this point that it isn't anywhere near that simple.

The Eglinton LRT is overbudget too.

I'd also say that history has demonstrated the TTC is excellent at building subways. Things started going sideways when the province got involved, and it's only gotten worse overtime.

 

[robmausser]

Actually, the ability to handle certain grades is predicated on total train weight (therefore length).

If, after opening the new line, you ascertain that you need to add 1/3 to the length of the train, its not simply tacking on more cars......its discerning whether you may have to tear down entire segments of line and rebuild from scratch.

There's also the matter of station placement; if any of those stations is near a curve on one side, never mind two, extending them may prove impossible, not merely expensive and disruptive.

I'm not firmly opposed to choosing different rolling stock than the TTC standard; or going to standard gauge (though i see little advantage to this and creates problems, like lack of interoperability); but reducing capacity to save a few $$$ now, seems penny-wise, pound foolish.

I absolutely agree that the capacity needs to be increased, but I do not think that argument means we need to use standard TTC subway technology.

While increasing a trains length increases certain grade needs, as well as potential weight on elevated structures (although that weight is still more widely distributed) not being tied down to current technology means we are open to finding engineering solutions to problems more easily.

 

[Northern Light]

I prefer side facing seating. It's not the greatest aesthetically but I hate how too often on our subway cars people who sit forward in the two seating arrangement manage to put their purses or bags on the seat next to them basically reducing capacity. It's much more difficult to be rude on a side facing seat. I love them in NYC.

I freely concede to not being a side seating fan.

There's little question, in theory, that that layout is more efficient capacity wise and easier to clean.

However, as someone whose had to deal w/aging parents whose balance and physical strength is less than ideal, I can tell you that having forward-facing seating can be really helpful (eliminates the side-to-side motion, and against the wall provides an extra level of support).

Many people prone to motion-sickness also note the benefit of forward-facing seats.

I'm partial them personally as well.

While I'm generally pro-efficiency, there are times when comfort, safety, style and grace matter more.

This, is one of those, to me.

 

[W. K. Lis]

We're at the point where we need ANYTHING to be built for a Relief Ontario (Crayon) Line, yesterday. Hopefully, SOMETHING will start within 3 or 4 years.

 

[cplchanb]

Then who's implementing it?




I think it's obvious at this point that it isn't anywhere near that simple.

The Eglinton LRT is overbudget too.

I'd also say that history has demonstrated the TTC is excellent at building subways. Things started going sideways when the province got involved, and it's only gotten worse overtime.

but didnt they fire their TYSSE project managers when they discovered gross incompetence with their management of the project? I highly doubt it was the province's fault that they let the people lose control of the project and cost people hundreds of millions to rectify.

 

[BurlOak]

While increasing a trains length increases certain grade needs, as well as potential weight on elevated structures (although that weight is still more widely distributed) not being tied down to current technology means we are open to finding engineering solutions to problems more easily.

In a locomotive situation, a longer train means more difficulty with grades. If each train has traction, then it is irrelevant.

Elevated transit lines have spans of about 40m. Thus, the design is basically 1 (or 2) cars per span, and it's really the axle weights that govern (as I recall reading a few pages back). It's only for the main crossing of the Don Valley that train length may matter, and here the self weight of the bridge becomes much larger and a bit of extra train weight does not make an appreciable difference.

 

[BurlOak]

Not overly concerned about weather, but it isn't exactly a non-issue for TTC either (we all know they exist - on L2 at both ends in winter, especially). The only serious issue for me is low-balling platform length to 100m - that's ECLRT level, and counting on frequency to hit the target pphpd meant you will have nowhere to go once you max that.

Personally I would like to see 130m underground stations (with the 30m roughed in, if the cost delta is too high) and have provisions for extensions to full 130m for above ground ones.

AoD

It's exactly the above ground stations that do not need to be longer - well, maybe most of them.
As I have said before, the main interchange stations (of which there are 6), should be longer - maybe 120m, and the remaining stations 100m. Not all cars must service all stations.

 

[Northern Light]

It's exactly the above ground stations that do not need to be longer - well, maybe most of them.
As I have said before, the main interchange stations (of which there are 6), should be longer - maybe 120m, and the remaining stations 100m. Not all cars must service all stations.

How does your station sizing strategy work when evacuating a train larger than the station in which it is located? Or did you just kill 1/3 of the passengers? Just wondering.....

 

[syn]

We're at the point where we need ANYTHING to be built for a Relief Ontario (Crayon) Line, yesterday. Hopefully, SOMETHING will start within 3 or 4 years.

That's the problem with this plan. Almost everyone agrees the DRL version of the project (and more) was needed decades ago. Why are we building a lower capacity line than we would've built decades ago, when we already need maximum capacity now?

One of the arguments for projects like the Sheppard Line and SSE are that a subway is that they're being done 'properly' so nothing will have to be changed in the future. It doesn't seem to matter that there won't be the density to justify subways in those corridors for generations.

Why isn't the same rationale being applied here? Looking at growth across Toronto, and especially downtown, it's very clear that we can't afford to skimp on this project....yet here we are, even after the government uploaded it.

 

[BurlOak]

But there'd still be lots of room for keeping the original RLS route, while still incorporating aspects of this OL. Elevated north of O'Connor, using unconventional trains by Toronto standards (narrower, shorter cars for better turning, seltrac), perhaps running to Ontario Place as a spur built only for 50m. There was always room for tweaking, and hacking costs down. This seems more like Doug brought Schabas to Swiss Chalet and they were given crayons.

This is likely the solution - or the problem - that you have identified. There were a number of ways to design the DRL with cost savings in mind, but Jenifer Keesmat and her teem did not entertain any of them. Now that the Ontario Line came along, it highlights how a more efficient design is possible.
Could these concepts have been used for the DRL to lower the price?
If they were, would the DRL long have been funded instead of the short downtown piece?

I suspect it's too late, but we are likely in a situation similar to SSE, where there are two plans being discussed.
1) The anti-Fords want to revert to the Keesmat DRL subway.
2) The get-it-done crowd is ok with the Ontario Line.
The best solution may be the third option - that nobody will be talking about.
A redesigned DRL around a separate vehicle type and with cost savings in mind. Eliminate the connection to B-D. Eliminate the Carlaw jog. Reduce the depths of stations, where possible. Use cut-and-cover where possible. Elevate where possible.

 

[BurlOak]

How does your station sizing strategy work when evacuating a train larger than the station in which it is located? Or did you just kill 1/3 of the passengers? Just wondering.....

I did not think about that.
I suppose they would all perish - just like if the train would stop between stations and 100% of passengers would be killed.

 

[syn]

1) The anti-Fords want to revert to the Keesmat DRL subway.
2) The get-it-done crowd is ok with the Ontario Line.

I see. The only way someone could have a problem with this proposal is if they're anti-Ford?

Perhaps 1) is actually the "get-it-done-properly crowd"?

How does your station sizing strategy work when evacuating a train larger than the station in which it is located? Or did you just kill 1/3 of the passengers? Just wondering.....

Parachutes? Escape tunnels? Slides?

 

[salsa]

Left vs right confirmation bias in action

Experts cast doubt on deadline, budget in Ontario Line business case | The Star

Business case for Ford's proposed Ontario Line released; transportation engineer gives it a nod

 

[Forgotten]

I think that's a factor that's worth considering. Is a plan a bad one simply because it's presented by Ford? Of course not. In all fairness, I do think there have been quite a few legitimate questions/concerns raised that have nothing to do with Ford nor the Conservatives.

Speaking for myself it has nothing to do with political stripes. I'm in favour of properly planned subways as many here are. My problem is with jank being peddled by snake oil salesmen. The 30 year long Scarborough LRT disaster was foisted upon us by a Kennedy School flunky and we don't need another monument to his stupidity in this city.

A modular approach to planning and design isn't at all unusual in transit. The DRL wasn't thought up overnight, as it seems to be with the Ontario Line. The city and planning experts spent years coming up with the alignment for that phase of the project.

Answers about DRL North and DRL West would've come in due time. Not revealing preliminary info doesn't mean they're all working in a vacuum.

You spend years nailing down a route for the first section then a few years later when you finally turn to consider the other section you run into a gotcha that prevents you from doing the optimal thing because of choices you made earlier. That's not smart planning.

View attachment 196242

View attachment 196256

These diagrams only illustrate the poor choices team Tory and Keesmat crew made.