Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[syn]

Sure, blame Doug Ford for the city's stupidity. We should have a proper DRL up and running right now, and with all the federal funding now available, we could now be planning extensions to Steeles and maybe the airport. Instead the Einsteins from downtown said no for decades, and now Doug Ford is actually planning their transit.

I agree.

Remind me though, who cancelled the DRL that was near ready for construction?

Who cancelled an excellent, above grade LRT line in Scarborough a decade ago (their 'Ontario Line') that would already be running in favour of a costly subway that still hasn't broke ground?

Interesting how you went directly to defending Ford, without actually addressing my post.

If we have money for expensive suburban projects that will be underused, then certainly we could find the money to build a higher capacity Ontario Line, couldn't we?

 

[MisterF]

I agree: there are many great things about the Ontario Line by itself, from platform screen doors and fully-automated operation to modern rolling stock.

All of those things could have easily been included in the old plan without sacrificing capacity.

 

[innsertnamehere]

All of those things could have easily been included in the old plan without sacrificing capacity.

But sacrificing huge amounts of money for a marginal capacity that won't be utilized, at best, for a generation. That additional cost has real impacts on the amount of transit that can get delivered today.

 

[ARG1]

All of those things could have easily been included in the old plan without sacrificing capacity.

I mean it depends. Even with ATC, can the TRs actually operate at 90s headways or is it closer to 108secs? Also the Ontario Line is leaning I believe to a private operator instead of the TTC because the TTC unions would never let the TTC operate fully automated trains.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I mean it depends. Even with ATC, can the TRs actually operate at 90s headways or is it closer to 108secs? Also the Ontario Line is leaning I believe to a private operator instead of the TTC because the TTC unions would never let the TTC operate fully automated trains.

 

[MisterF]

But sacrificing huge amounts of money for a marginal capacity that won't be utilized, at best, for a generation. That additional cost has real impacts on the amount of transit that can get delivered today.

The capacity is needed today, not a generation from now. Besides, infrastructure should be built for the needs of future generations, not only the current one. Ridership models showed that the DRL would have been the second busiest subway line in the city.

I mean it depends. Even with ATC, can the TRs actually operate at 90s headways or is it closer to 108secs?

I suggest that you get answers to these questions before coming to a conclusion about an issue based on those answers. Either way, 90s headways are a distraction. They're a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is capacity, and the new plan has lower capacity than the old plan, so whether or not the old plan could have delivered 90s frequencies is irrelevant.

Also the Ontario Line is leaning I believe to a private operator instead of the TTC because the TTC unions would never let the TTC operate fully automated trains.

Pure speculation. Unions aren't all powerful. The reality is that governments can and do overrule unions when they need to. Scapegoating unions isn't a valid reason for the DRL being replaced by the OL. The operator isn't either. The province or a private operator could have run the DRL just the same as they can run the OL.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Where is your source for capacity being needed today? The OL will be about half of maximum capacity on opening day from what I have seen, and would need to exceed peak hour volumes that are experienced on any subway line in the city experienced today to exceed its design maximum.

additionally, the capacity lost from shifting to smaller trains is about 10-15%, but comes with an approximate 50% cost reduction. That’s significant and a worthy prospect in my mind.

further, we are discussing a level of additional capacity with the TRs that would only forestall an additional relief line of some sort by a handful of years if we are expecting ridership growth to be strong enough to quickly overwhelm the OL. If the OL can deliver 30,000 pphd and the TRs can deliver 35,000, is it worth spending twice as much per kilometre to have a relief line only be required in 2055 instead of 2050?

 

[Northern Light]

Where is your source for capacity being needed today? The OL will be about half of maximum capacity on opening day from what I have seen, and would need to exceed peak hour volumes that are experienced on any subway line in the city experienced today to exceed its design maximum.

additionally, the capacity lost from shifting to smaller trains is about 10-15%, but comes with an approximate 50% cost reduction. That’s significant and a worthy prospect in my mind.

further, we are discussing a level of additional capacity with the TRs that would only forestall an additional relief line of some sort by a handful of years if we are expecting ridership growth to be strong enough to quickly overwhelm the OL. If the OL can deliver 30,000 pphd and the TRs can deliver 35,000, is it worth spending twice as much per kilometre to have a relief line only be required in 2055 instead of 2050?

This is the capacity chart from the Ontario Line Business Case:

Now look closely as the Passenger Per M2

The real, as observed maximum of a Toronto Rocket Train is 2.44 passengers per M2

The assumed number for an O/L train, used to calculate capacity is up to 4! Note that this creates imaginary room on the order of 66% beyond a reasonable number.

The 30,000, right there in front of you, is a complete work of fiction.

A fair number would be at the same persons per m2 as the TR train, which would be a 39% reduction from the 30,000 number at 18, 300.

That's black magic.

Do tell me how you would find sharing a mere 1M2 with 3 other passengers?

Source: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...2020-12-08-Ontario-Line-PDBC-Public-Final.pdf

 

[innsertnamehere]

I mean part of that is TRs large amount of seating, reducing peak passenger densities.

higher densities can be achieved by design through fewer seats and more frequent entrances and exits, as people more densely pack close to exits.

that image shows that the Skyrain achieves densities of 3 people per square metre on its trains.

Also, you will also notice that they assume 750 passengers on trains with 300m2 in area.. that’s 2.5/m2, not 4! If the OL can achieve 3 passengers per square metre like the sky train, capacity could actually match the existing toronto subway system!

if they can indeed achieve 40tph, 750 passengers on a 100x3m train should be quite achievable, considering TRs get 1,100 passengers on trains 47% larger. The 1100 number is conveniently 47% more than 750!

 

[innsertnamehere]

The excuses thrown around on this board that the OL design capacity is inadequate reek of “Toronto exceptionalism” to me. The OL isn’t proposing some unique, low capacity technology - actually the opposite. It’s using off the shelf standard metro technology used literally all around the world. If that level of capacity is acceptable on literally every other continent - why not in Toronto? Why does toronto need a tailored vehicle technology designed in the 1940’s that costs twice as much per kilometre?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The excuses thrown around on this board that the OL design capacity is inadequate reek of “Toronto exceptionalism” to me. The OL isn’t proposing some unique, low capacity technology - actually the opposite. It’s using off the shelf standard metro technology used literally all around the world. If that level of capacity is acceptable on literally every other continent - why not in Toronto? Why does toronto need a tailored vehicle technology designed in the 1940’s that costs twice as much per kilometre?

Using the same technology that Toronto is already using isn't tailored made. The metro that Washington D.C. is using the same technology that Toronto uses on its heavy rail.

 

[innsertnamehere]

One last thing - why all the concern about capacity for the OL when the former Scarborough LRT would have been reasonably close to its capacity limit (only about 5,000 pphd of growth room, or 50% of projected opening day ridership, compared to 100% and about 15,000 pphd growth ability for the OL) and that was radio silence and fierce opposition of spending for higher capacity there? Just Sayin’

 

[Undead]

Also let's not forget the current subway loses 10 or so percent in capacity because of various operational inefficiencies (source: Steve Munro's analysis).

 

[Northern Light]

The excuses thrown around on this board that the OL design capacity is inadequate reek of “Toronto exceptionalism” to me. The OL isn’t proposing some unique, low capacity technology - actually the opposite. It’s using off the shelf standard metro technology used literally all around the world. If that level of capacity is acceptable on literally every other continent - why not in Toronto?

I don't recall arguing specifically for TR-trains as a technology at any point.
I really wish you would target your arguments at specific posts so we could see what argument you're trying to make vs which competing argument.
@AlvinofDiaspar and I have both consistently talked about platform length and related capacity, not the type of rollingstock.

* the exception to that was in regards to re-using the Greenwood Yard as-is (tracklayout) as oppose to re-gauging it for standard rail. Though that still isn't rollingstock specific per se.

Why does toronto need a tailored vehicle technology designed in the 1940’s that costs twice as much per kilometre?

Huh? A modern train operating on ATC is what's contemplated, and that's what would be delivered even if anyone were advocating for a next-generation Toronto Rocket.
There is no inherent technological difference. There is a difference in rail gauge; but that's about it. What has been targeted, in respect of capacity, are highly optimistic assumptions around train capacity, dwell time and throughput.
There is a strong sense, among many of us, that at the very least, underground stations require a shell for a longer platform; that's hardly an unreasonable position.

****

On costs, you're conflating so many different things, underground-vs-elevated (Toronto-Rockets/longer trains can be elevated), along with shorter platform lengths. Neither of which are about 'technology'.

 

[Northern Light]

One last thing - why all the concern about capacity for the OL when the former Scarborough LRT would have been reasonably close to its capacity limit (only about 5,000 pphd of growth room, or 50% of projected opening day ridership, compared to 100% and about 15,000 pphd growth ability for the OL) and that was radio silence and fierce opposition of spending for higher capacity there? Just Sayin’

For the record, and you can check this through this site, I have been pro-SSE and anti SLRT from day one.

My issues then, as now, were that I felt Danforth/McCowan was a superior route, and that had the project been done in a timely way, it would have avoided the 3-4 year shutdown that would have been required (of course, endless delays and flip-flops ruined that advantage).

On top of which, I also expressed concerns about capacity.

Mind you, I also have concerns about an overly-expensive tunneling concept and station concept at Lawrence for the SSE and very much disagree with omitting a Brimley Road station or a Trudelle Station (just north of Eglinton) but then again, I'm even-handed in the way I examine options...........ahem.