Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Yeah.

Personally I remain extremely suspicious about the potential to reach 1 min 50 second headways. There are other systems that have less usage at their main interchange station, but use the spanish solution, and they're still just barely able to make 1 min 50 second headways. I'm very curious to see if the TTC used any pedestrian flow modelling at Bloor-Yonge Station when determining Yonge Line capacity. They clearly didn't back when they thought ATO would allow for 90s second headways.

Anyways hopefully the Relief Line Long will allow us to achieve even better Yonge Line headways.
 
Two options to solve Y-B.

Extend the platform 25m to accept 8 car trains. The front 2 cars would not have doors open at all stations north of Bloor; the back two cars South of Bloor.

Extend the platform 150m and have the train stop first to upload passengers (no boardings), then pull forward to let passengers on. This way two train can be at Bloor at the same time, with the dwell time cut in half.
 
BurlOak said:
Two options to solve Y-B.

Extend the platform 25m to accept 8 car trains. The front 2 cars would not have doors open at all stations north of Bloor; the back two cars South of Bloor.

Extend the platform 150m and have the train stop first to upload passengers (no boardings), then pull forward to let passengers on. This way two train can be at Bloor at the same time, with the dwell time cut in half.
Click to expand...
For the money it would take to achieve these things, we can just simply spend it on extending the Relief Line to Sheppard, reducing Yonge traffic by 11,600 peak commuters and mitigating the problem.
 
I believe that the plan for Y-B was adding an additional platform. What I was wondering is whether it is much easier to extending the station length instead of widening it.
I do agree that DRL to Finch needs to be done first, but maybe after its done and there is an alternative and before traffic builds back up again, something could be done at Y-B.
 
BurlOak said:
I believe that the plan for Y-B was adding an additional platform. What I was wondering is whether it is much easier to extending the station length instead of widening it.
I do agree that DRL to Finch needs to be done first, but maybe after its done and there is an alternative and before traffic builds back up again, something could be done at Y-B.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this. Long term Y-B needs to be upgraded because it will always be the one of the main transfer points in the system, regardless of how much traffic the DRL and Spadina lines can divert. The interchange that'll be built for the DRL and Bloor lines (at Pape presumably) will hopefully be designed with the problems of Y-B addressed and so there's no reason Y-B can't be improved after. If anything, a full DRL being built might allow us to shut down or at least severely restrict access to Y-B to finish work faster no? Since St. George, Pape and the streetcar lines would be able to handle pretty much all the transfers ideally.
 
Yes, B-D transfers could be at Pape, St. George and Spadina.

For the Yonge traffic, it may also help with ECLRT and Sheppard connected to the DRL and University line.
 
Yonge line ridership forecasts factor in many things:
  • ATC and Rocket train capacity: 28,000 to 36,000 pphpd
  • Population and employment growth: + 6,600 pphpd
  • Spadina extension: - 1,300 pphpd
  • GO RER: - 4,200 pphpd
  • Yonge extension: + 2,400 pphpd
This still leaves the line at 96% capacity, assuming everything is running smoothly. One train alarm or station incident and you get a massive jam.

2zRjkZO.png


But with the Relief Line-LONG, Metrolinx's initial estimate was this will bring it down to 20,700 (57.5%). Not sure that necessitates work at B-Y, even if that is a liberal estimate.

(Source)
 
With Queen and Broadview DRL station, how might the streetcar connections be implemented? Just surface with people walking to the subway? Or would there be a major re-think and underground streetcar stops to ease transfers?
 
wolfewood said:
I'd agree with this. Long term Y-B needs to be upgraded because it will always be the one of the main transfer points in the system, regardless of how much traffic the DRL and Spadina lines can divert. The interchange that'll be built for the DRL and Bloor lines (at Pape presumably) will hopefully be designed with the problems of Y-B addressed and so there's no reason Y-B can't be improved after. If anything, a full DRL being built might allow us to shut down or at least severely restrict access to Y-B to finish work faster no? Since St. George, Pape and the streetcar lines would be able to handle pretty much all the transfers ideally.
Click to expand...

Lengthening the platform - even if possible - won't do anything to resolve the issue of poor circulation - and it is kind of pointless to do it just for one station and not others (and if you do it to others, the cost will rack up proportionately).

I am of the mind that major structural changes to Y+B are probably not worth it, unless the opportunity to do so surreptitiously arise - and even then most of the extent proposals are pretty awful.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Lengthening the platform - even if possible - won't do anything to resolve the issue of poor circulation - and it is kind of pointless to do it just for one station and not others (and if you do it to others, the cost will rack up proportionately).
Click to expand...
Though that's what they are doing at Eglinton - lengthening the platform to the north (and closing some of it to the south), to improve circulation. Though likely impossible for the Bloor platforms, because of the nearby foundations.

Quite frankly, I don't know how you deal with it, short of building a complete second tunnel further west for the other direction. London has done some stuff like that, which has lead to relatively short closures.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Lengthening the platform - even if possible - won't do anything to resolve the issue of poor circulation - and it is kind of pointless to do it just for one station and not others (and if you do it to others, the cost will rack up proportionately).

I am of the mind that major structural changes to Y+B are probably not worth it, unless the opportunity to do so surreptitiously arise - and even then most of the extent proposals are pretty awful.

AoD
Click to expand...

Admittedly I was imagining something to improve circulation. So not necessarily platform lengthening but rebuilding Y-B to improve transfers and capacity. Admittedly I'm not sure how much can be done but if we had two transfer points on each side of Y-B something could be done comparatively quickly as it won't be the only transfer point anymore. Assuming trains can continue through Y-B without stopping that is.
 
And what do you do about Yonge and Eglinton and other stations that are having a hard time getting people onboard? Better to go with a Relief Line.
 
Edward Skira said:
And what do you do about Yonge and Eglinton and other stations that are having a hard time getting people onboard? Better to go with a Relief Line.
Click to expand...

Again, not suggesting the DRL is unnecessary or not a pre-requisite to what I'm thinking of here lol My reasoning is based on the recent history of Y-B as I understand it. Basically there were plans in the 80s to upgrade the station but the 90s recession and Harris years cut transit ridership such that it became unnecessary, right? Until it became necessary again. So my thinking is, even with a DRL Long and two western relief points (St. George and Dundas West), Y-B could get overcapacity again. Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it? Especially once it becomes redundant so we can close the station and make the upgrades quickly.
 
wolfewood said:
Presumably a lot of the problem here is that Y-B is poorly designed as a transfer point so why not upgrade it?
Click to expand...

There's at least a billion reasons why.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top