Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[syn]

1. Low hanging fruit? Such as what? Keep in mind any Yonge Line capacity enhancements will cost several billions at a bare minmimum. A seventh car on Yonge Line will not necessarily improve capacity, as Line 1 capacity is also limited by passenger throughput and platform crowding. Every dollar spent on Yonge Line capacity enhancements could more effectively be spent on OL capacity enhancements.

2. In the event that the OL is extended to Sheppard, the line would be at least 70% full on Day 1 of revenue service. That does not provide a comfortable buffer, and it certainly precludes any extensions beyond Sheppard and into York Region. Further, if MX intends to use the OL to divert RER passengers from Union, capacity constraints will prohibit OL extensions beyond Eglinton.

This is why the OL is such a poor plan in it's current incarnation.

It's not because it doesn't exactly follow the previous RL alignment.

It's not because it runs above ground through Leslieville.

It simply doesn't have the capacity necessary to achieve the primary goal of providing significant, long term relief to the Yonge Line.

 

[Rainforest]

But we are not losing 30% and we are not saving 15%, OL capacity is stated at max of 30k ppdph, TR's are 36k ppdph, over 80% for OL, a bit part likely being a higher maximum frequency due to better acceleration and deceleration characteristics + PSDs, another big part being a more efficient interior layout which we refuse to use on the regular subway. Forcing the line to be tunneled absolutely does not help value for money . . . .

OK, current TR's on Yonge with the current signal system is 36k, and OL may be able to reach 80% or 85% of that. But, all the same enhancements planned for OL, can be implemented on the Yonge line at a later time. The trainsets have to be replaced every few decades, the next batch ordered can have a better layout and better acceleration. The traffic control system can be upgraded.

While for OL, we will be at the physical limit dictated by the train and station geometry. If the trains are 30% smaller, then the future ultimate capacity should be approx. 30% smaller, even if the opening-day difference is only 15%.

Having to add a gs at Scarborough junction in the future is fine, you do not need express / local to "operate perfectly" will just need to operate mostly local.

Lakeshore East, in addition to GO / RER, has a fair number of VIA trains to Montreal / Ottawa. They will occupy some of the express slots.

It is possible to juggle the local and express train departure times so that expresses do not get caught behind the local trains. But that reduces the total maximum frequency, and increases the cost of unplanned delays.

So, that's not end of the world, GO + VIA can manage with 4 tracks, but that still means an external cost of the selected OL route.

 

[allengeorge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1392143455577591816

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Well I guess we are stuck with this, let's make the best of this.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This is why the OL is such a poor plan in it's current incarnation.

It's not because it doesn't exactly follow the previous RL alignment.

It's not because it runs above ground through Leslieville.

It simply doesn't have the capacity necessary to achieve the primary goal of providing significant, long term relief to the Yonge Line.

1. Low hanging fruit? Such as what? Keep in mind any Yonge Line capacity enhancements will cost several billions at a bare minmimum. A seventh car on Yonge Line will not necessarily improve capacity, as Line 1 capacity is also limited by platform and station crowding. Every dollar spent on Yonge Line capacity enhancements could more effectively be spent on OL capacity enhancements.

2. In the event that the OL is extended to Sheppard, the line would be at least 70% full on Day 1 of revenue service. That does not provide a comfortable buffer, and it certainly precludes any extensions beyond Sheppard and into York Region. Further, if MX intends to use the OL to divert RER passengers from Union, capacity constraints will prohibit OL extensions beyond Eglinton.

1. Yonge capacity improvement isn't optional even with OL considering densification patterns.
2. That's what concerns me about OL - there is zero word of the impact of extension northward to capacity requirements.

AoD

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.

 

[NeilsenJ]

If the federal government is funding Ontario transit projects such as the Ontario Line, I hope they have a strong voice in demanding how that money is spent, such as reserving the busy rail corridor for future VIA Rail capacity upgrades.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is why the OL is such a poor plan in it's current incarnation.

It's not because it doesn't exactly follow the previous RL alignment.

It's not because it runs above ground through Leslieville.

It simply doesn't have the capacity necessary to achieve the primary goal of providing significant, long term relief to the Yonge Line.

It's going to be a fun time in 10 years when the public realizes that after our $11 Billion investment, the Yonge Line is still operating at 100% capacity with absolutely no plans on the table to resolve the crowding crisis. We can stick our head in the sand about it all we want, but this is the future we've signed up for.

 

[superelevation]

Infinite capacity? I hope the Perimeter Institute has a Yonge Subway wing lol.



Maybe not "overwhelmingly", but pantos are being used more frequently. I still prefer 3rd rail for a new subway system into the core. Smaller profile, smaller tunnels, looks better open air. It's good.

And then what? Line 1, 2, 4 should permanently remain underground because third rail has "a lot of problems"? For someone calling themselves super elevation surely you'd be a bit more flexible.

Never said they should permanently be underground, building a new line is a very different situation and again the only issue with third rail is not icing. It is also a safety hazard, and limits top speeds.

1. Low hanging fruit? Such as what? Keep in mind any Yonge Line capacity enhancements will cost several billions at a bare minmimum. A seventh car on Yonge Line will not necessarily improve capacity, as Line 1 capacity is also limited by platform and station crowding. Every dollar spent on Yonge Line capacity enhancements could more effectively be spent on OL capacity enhancements.

2. In the event that the OL is extended to Sheppard, the line would be at least 70% full on Day 1 of revenue service. That does not provide a comfortable buffer, and it certainly precludes any extensions beyond Sheppard and into York Region. Further, if MX intends to use the OL to divert RER passengers from Union, capacity constraints will prohibit OL extensions beyond Eglinton.

Yonge Line Capacity enhancements should not cost a couple billion, you need to add additional exits to a handful of stations (several already underway) and perhaps widen a few existing entrances.

I will post this here as well cross post elsewhere as it has to do with elevated systems. This based on a report problems pertaining to Hawaii LRT which is a light metro that is years late and over budget that was just reported on.

Honolulu's rail project plagued with wheels too thin and tracks too wide​

One also needs to look at Montreal REM issues as well.

The person lives in Vancouver and a transit advocate makes this comment.

This projects problems have literally nothing to do with the fact that it is elevated, the issues all have to do with procurement incompetence. As for the Vancouver comments, the ones re cost to up capacity are factually incorrect and I will not waste time addressing them.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's going to be a fun time in 10 years when the public realizes that after our $11 Billion investment, the Yonge Line is still operating at 100% capacity with absolutely no plans on the table to resolve the crowding crisis. We can stick our head in the sand about it all we want, but this is the future we've signed up for.

I don't think you will ever get to a point where Yonge line isn't crowded - the only question is whether it is crowded enough to make would-be users change their travel patterns - or not.

AoD

 

[superelevation]

On the Yonge Line?

I think it's painfully obvious that's not true.

This is very short-sighted approach to transit expansion.

It's amazing how the OL is the only project where we have to save money. For the others, anything goes. Sadly, it's not saving any money in the long run.

Penny wise, pound foolish.

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.

 

[ARG1]

I will post this here as well cross post elsewhere as it has to do with elevated systems. This based on a report problems pertaining to Hawaii LRT which is a light metro that is years late and over budget that was just reported on.

Honolulu's rail project plagued with wheels too thin and tracks too wide​

One also needs to look at Montreal REM issues as well.

The person lives in Vancouver and a transit advocate makes this comment.

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:

Here we have the big problem with light metro. Unlike modern light rail, which is modular and interchangeable and flexible, light metro tends to be proprietary, as one company's light metro is not designed for another company's light metro

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.

Now ALRT cars can operate on ART tracks and visa versa, they cannot operate with each other in coupled sets and as the ART cars have longer and larger trucks/bogies, they have great difficulty with the switches or points on the ALRT Expo Line; the cars must travel through the switches at a low speed and there is is much protest and flange squeal when they do.

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.

Alstom now owns the proprietary light metro system now called Movia Automatic Light Metro and Translink is more than worried that they will dump the system altogether as no one else, except Vancouver wants the damn thing.

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.

The Canada Line needs a $1.5 to $2 billion rehab, just to increase its capacity beyond 9,000 pphpd and this must be done before any expansion of the line is considered.

[Citation Needed]

TransLink is well aware of this but at this point they do not want to shock the taxpayers with bad news until their $4.6 billion, 12.8 km extensions of the Expo and Millennium Lines are well under way and i will add this, for $4.6 billion, not a car will be taken off the road.

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.

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.

 

[superelevation]

Incredible how the industry has collectively hoodwinked governments into building these vendor-locked metro systems.

This will be our future with the OL. Assuming the capacity enhancements are even physically possible.

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!

 

[Allandale25]

Ottawa to kick in more than $10 billion to help fund Doug Ford’s Toronto transit plans

The Liberal government announced Tuesday it will pick up 40 per cent of the construction costs for the four rail lines in Premier Doug Ford’s GTA transit expansion plan.

www.thestar.com

"The prime minister said the Liberals “pushed hard” to add conditions to the funding agreement to improve the transit projects, including guarantees around community and environmental impacts, affordable housing near transit lines, and engagement with affected residents."

 

[superelevation]

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.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

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

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

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.