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

NotAToy said:
I'm still mad about Ontario Line being LRT. We have full, underused subway extensions in suburbs like TYSSE, Sheppard, SSE yet we have a line that would be going through dense areas, and supports Scarborough-downtown traffic, and is yet proposed to be LRT. If this is built, it will probably be at capacity in 20 years.
Click to expand...
But it's not LRT. It's just going to be a standard metro train instead of the TTCs regular mega-trains.

Capacity will more or less match the existing subway system. It just won't be capable of matching the future yonge line capacity once it gets the frequency upgrades.
 
Hopkins123 said:
Assuredly there'd be a stop at Harbord. Front and King could be consolidated into one stop (Clarence Sq being the southern exit). Here's an idea for replacing the 510 with an extension of the Spadina Subway. The Yonge-University Line now ends at St George Stn:

Vx0wHjb.png


This hits many nodes en route: U of T (a PATH system could even connect the Harbord stop directly to Sidney Smith and Robarts), CAMH, Kensington Market, Chinatown, Fashion District, West Queen West/SoHo, King West, CityPlace, Rogers Centre, Harbourfront Centre, One York, Queen's Quay Ferry Docks, Weston Harbour Castle, Scotiabank Arena/Jurassic Park. It's also very complimentary to the Ontario Line.
Click to expand...

Are you posting something I agree with?! This must be some sort of Christmas Miracle. ;)

Good idea. The southmost station(s) could be a good connection point for a Waterfront LRT.
 
syn said:
Are you posting something I agree with?! This must be some sort of Christmas Miracle. ;)

Good idea. The southmost station(s) could be a good connection point for a Waterfront LRT.
Click to expand...

I sense that we've been on the same page on most things all along, you just threw me in with OneCity and conflated his opinions as my own. :) We may disagree on what to do about Scarborough in particular but I definitely support grade-separated real rapid transit for most parts of the city, indeed.
 
innsertnamehere said:
But it's not LRT. It's just going to be a standard metro train instead of the TTCs regular mega-trains.

Capacity will more or less match the existing subway system. It just won't be capable of matching the future yonge line capacity once it gets the frequency upgrades.
Click to expand...
If you think our trains are mega-sized, Tokyo, New York City, Montreal, DC, and San Francisco would like a word.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Montreal? Their trains are tiny.
Click to expand...
Length matters, in fact, it's the most important aspect.

Remember, a wider tunnel doesn't really increase costs (Unless it forces you to tunnel significantly deeper), but a longer platform most certainly increases costs. Also, TTC rolling stock doesn't force you to use wide tunnels, the crosstown's tunnels are about half a meter wider than the TYSSEs.

Existing TTC rolling stock is just over the proposed Ontario Line rolling stock width, the only way they're saving money is decreasing the length of the train by 33%
 
begratto said:
The Azur (MPM-10) trains are not wide, but train each can carry 1100 passengers. That's similar or just slightly less than the TTC's trains I believe.
Click to expand...

The TTC's own loading standards call for each train to average 1100 passengers at rush hour. But the reality is that each car is capable - in a pinch - of holding almost 400 passengers, meaning the "crush" capacity of a 6-car train is almost 2400.

The Azur cars, by virtue of being over a foot narrower, would not be capable of carrying the same number of passengers in that "crush" configuration.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
The TTC's own loading standards call for each train to average 1100 passengers at rush hour. But the reality is that each car is capable - in a pinch - of holding almost 400 passengers, meaning the "crush" capacity of a 6-car train is almost 2400.

The Azur cars, by virtue of being over a foot narrower, would not be capable of carrying the same number of passengers in that "crush" configuration.

Dan
Click to expand...
Even then, 400 passengers in one car still seem like a lot, especially with the seating configuration present on the train. If we're really stuffing 2400 passengers in each TR, the Yonge subway would have a theoretical capacity (that would obviously never be met) of 72K PPHPD. Seeing as that's twice of what is actually occurring during rush hour right now, the reported 1,458 passengers per train seems far more reasonable.
 
smallspy said:
The TTC's own loading standards call for each train to average 1100 passengers at rush hour. But the reality is that each car is capable - in a pinch - of holding almost 400 passengers, meaning the "crush" capacity of a 6-car train is almost 2400.

The Azur cars, by virtue of being over a foot narrower, would not be capable of carrying the same number of passengers in that "crush" configuration.

Dan
Click to expand...

Unless they go with all perimeter seating. Which I would be against. (Doug Ford, since he rarely uses public transit, wouldn't care.)

hong-kong-mtr-train.jpg

From link.
 
innsertnamehere said:
But it's not LRT. It's just going to be a standard metro train instead of the TTCs regular mega-trains.

Capacity will more or less match the existing subway system. It just won't be capable of matching the future yonge line capacity once it gets the frequency upgrades.
Click to expand...
So monorail mostly likely. That will go over well.
 
innsertnamehere said:
But it's not LRT. It's just going to be a standard metro train instead of the TTCs regular mega-trains.

Capacity will more or less match the existing subway system. It just won't be capable of matching the future yonge line capacity once it gets the frequency upgrades.
Click to expand...

The capacity of the Ontario Line compared to the rest of the system is, at least from a design point of view, totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the Ontario Line can match the capacity of the existing system, if the Ontario Line itself will be over capacity.

As far as capacity is concerned, the number we should primarily be concerned with is the volume/capacity ratio of the first phase of the Ontario Line (Ontario Place to Science Centre) and any reasonable extensions (namely to Sheppard).

Metrolinx needs to demonstrate that the Ontario Line, and any future extensions, will have a reasonable V/C. If this line is going to be 90% full 10 or 20 years after opening, we're going to be putting ourselves in a really bad position.

The Ontario Line, under its current design, will not ever achieve its primary design goal of relieving Yonge Line crowding. It's clearly a proposal that has prioritized political expediency over genuine engineering objectives. This proposal should've died on the whiteboard, when there are obviously far more effective solutions.

The City of Toronto will be adding another 1 Million residents in the next 20 years; now is not the time to be skimping on subway capacity. I can only hope this government will get to their senses and spend the additional $1 or $2 Billion today to ensure adequate capacity, otherwise in a decades time we'll be spending $15 Billion to fix the design flaws with this poorly designed Ontario Line.

The Relief Line North would've finally pushed Line 1 utilization under 25,000 pphpd, allowing for smooth and reliable operation of Line 1 for hundreds of thousands of daily commuters for decades to come. It would've allowed us to have an effective and reliable Line 1 extension into York Region. It would've brought much of North York and Scarbrough within 20 or 30 mins of the Downtown Core for the first time ever. The lack of capacity on the Ontario Line puts all those objectives at risk. This might be perhaps the most short sighted piece of public transit infrastructure in the city if it's ever realized.
 
Last edited:
It should have the same subway cars as the other 3 lines for more flexibility with them. That way newer longer and higher capacity trains could go on Line 1 and the new line can get some of it’s Toronto Rockets.
 
W. K. Lis said:
After they rebuild the Union streetcar loop, they could order 56m long streetcars (compare with the current 30.20 m streetcars) to use on the 510 Spadina.


(If they had to use 3 buses for each streetcar when they had track problems on Queen, they would need almost 9 buses with those long ones.)
Click to expand...
not likely to happen as the TTC doesn't want to have a set of vehicles that are dedicated to only one route. They like having the flexibility of being able to put a streetcar onto any route plus also with the different dictions that some of the loops go it reduces wear on the wheels from the sides when they go around curves.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top