Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[TheTigerMaster]

If it's good enough for the tony residents of Rosedale then why can't it be for the people of Scarborough?
Also, it's true that the Vancouver SkyTrain capacity is lower but that strictly due to the size of the stations. Build even 100 meter stations and you have a very high capacity system. The new MK111 are gorgeous and completely articulated like the new subway trains. They can run at frequency of up to every 80 seconds. To put that into perspective, a 95 meter station is the equivalent of running 9 MK1 cars every 80 seconds.

From what I've heard, the Vancouver sky train design is a disaster. Capacity is way too low thanks to the tiny (tiny!) stations they designed. Guess this is what happens when you trust profit driven private corporations with the design of public transit. Thankfully Toronto has had the foresight to design all lines long platform sizes.

 

[BurlOak]

This is what happens when you trust the public sector to set the requirements for what the design should be.

 

[coffey1]

This is what happens when you trust the public sector to set the requirements for what the design should be.

The POS RT is what happened

 

[diminutive]

From what I've heard, the Vancouver sky train design is a disaster. Capacity is way too low thanks to the tiny (tiny!) stations they designed. Guess this is what happens when you trust profit driven private corporations with the design of public transit. Thankfully Toronto has had the foresight to design all lines long platform sizes.

That's a completely inaccurate portrayal of Vancouver.

Current capacity on the Expo line is about 15,000 pphpd, which should be expandable to 26,000 (close to the current Yonge line) with more trains. The Canada Line has a reduced capacity (15,000 max) due to shorter platforms.

While these are lower than Toronto's typical subway design they're not "way too low" given Vancouver's size. And while demand on the TTC's busiest segments exceeds what Skytrain/CanadaLine could accommodate, that's partially a reflection of our lack of system expansion due to high capital costs and a resulting overloading of the capacity we do have.

There are additional costs to our approach in that we have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on surface feeders to fill up our very-high capacity subways.

So, yes, Vancouver opted for a lower capacity system, but it'll have have more rapid transit coverage than Toronto until the Crosstown opens in 2021, despite being a significantly smaller city that started 30 years after us.

 

[ssiguy2]

Yes the stations are basic and, especially the Canada Line ones are far too small. That said , the station size had NOTHING to do with the private developer and everything to do with Victoria, Vancouver, and Translink. Campbell said he would only build a line with 15,000 pphpd but then only funded 40 meter station with expansion to just 50 meters and Vancouver and Translink went along with it as they figured it's now or never.

This was made worse by Richmond only wanting one rail down #3 Road and the province doing the same thru the airport section. Campbell also cheaped out by not allowing funds for Waterfront to have an extra rail line for 100 meters so as not having the spare train take up one side of the station.

Campbell also created the contract which makes running extra trains VERY expensive.

The CL is already over capacity but it has nothing to do with the private contractor.

BTW....all the SkyTrain stations are just 72 meters but are designed to be easily expanded to 100 meters.

 

[rbt]

Capacity is way too low thanks to the tiny (tiny!) stations they designed.

Capacity is pretty much perfect for high-density walk-in type loads (+ a couple large destinations like the airport). Vancouver's challenge is they're dumping hundreds of busloads of people onto it too.

In short, once they build a couple parallel lines ~4 km away, and buses stop using this one, it'll be the right size for a century.


IMO, many medium capacity lines are vastly superior to few huge lines if for no reason other than giving flexibility to deal with shut downs.

Since a big part of the cost is underground stations, and station price is roughly scaled by the station box, you can build 2 lines with half-length trains for about 30% extra in cost. Capacity is the same but convenience (due to doubled coverage of rapid transit) is much higher.

Of course, if you can build those as frequent surface routes instead (I'm looking at you Metrolinx) that'll give you all the benefit at a fraction of the cost.

 

[coffey1]

That's a completely inaccurate portrayal of Vancouver.

Current capacity on the Expo line is about 15,000 pphpd, which should be expandable to 26,000 (close to the current Yonge line) with more trains. The Canada Line has a reduced capacity (15,000 max) due to shorter platforms.

While these are lower than Toronto's typical subway design they're not "way too low" given Vancouver's size. And while demand on the TTC's busiest segments exceeds what Skytrain/CanadaLine could accommodate, that's partially a reflection of our lack of system expansion due to high capital costs and a resulting overloading of the capacity we do have.

There are additional costs to our approach in that we have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on surface feeders to fill up our very-high capacity subways.

So, yes, Vancouver opted for a lower capacity system, but it'll have have more rapid transit coverage than Toronto until the Crosstown opens in 2021, despite being a significantly smaller city that started 30 years after us.

So are you saying hinting we should have been designing Skytrain DRL's not just a subway DRL?

 

[diminutive]

So are you saying hinting we should have been designing Skytrain DRL's not just a subway DRL?

My general point was that reducing capital (+operating) costs should be a more immediate goal than planning for a capacity crunch 50 years down the line. Shorter stations and rolling stock that can accommodate sharper turns and gradients are part of that. The lifetime costs of the Pape-St.Andrew DRL are up to 10b$ now. Toronto can't meaningfully expand RT coverage at such high prices.

AM peak-hour capacity in particularly is a bad metric to plan around. Assume we have a 15k/pphpd capacity route and that experiences peak demand of 20k/pphpd. People would be freaking out how this was a giant transit failure! The line would be under capacity for the rest of the day though, so we'd be talking about a massive expansion of capital costs (into the billions) to save 5,000 people from shifting their trips +/- an hour.

 

[BurlOak]

So are you saying hinting we should have been designing Skytrain DRL's not just a subway DRL?

Yes good idea.

1. A replacement for the Scarborough Subway is 1 DRL (Malvern to the Ex).
2. The traditional DRL is the second (Seneca College to City Hall to North-West??).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Both Montréal's Metro and Vancouver's Sky Train use narrower train cars. Toronto's Subway train cars are wider, giving them a higher capacity. However, that also means Montréal and Vancouver get more coverage, more lines.

Because of the size of Toronto's Subway trains, there is less coverage, but more feeders.

If we had gone on with Transit City LRTs, the light rail cars would have the same capacity as both Montréal and Vancouver, but we would have more coverage.

But no, we must not get more coverage.

 

[nfitz]

Both Montréal's Metro and Vancouver's Sky Train use narrower train cars. Toronto's Subway train cars are wider, giving them a higher capacity. However, that also means Montréal and Vancouver get more coverage, more lines.

Montreal's system is entirely underground. I don't think there's anything in the choice of car width, that gives it more coverage and more lines.

Nor does it have more coverage. It has only 4 lines, 68 stations, and 69 km. Toronto has 69 stations and 68 km. The Montreal and Toronto systems are surprisingly comparable - though Toronto has a lot of expansion under construction, and Montreal has only the talk that's been going on for 30 years.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Capacity is pretty much perfect for high-density walk-in type loads (+ a couple large destinations like the airport). Vancouver's challenge is they're dumping hundreds of busloads of people onto it too.

From what I've read, the problem with Vancouver's system isn't train capacity, but rather the passenger capacity of the stations themselves. The stations are under built, with only one entrance/exit, small staircases and very narrow/short platforms. They're already experiencing crowding problems on their stations, and the line is nowhere near design capacity.

 

[rbt]

From what I've read, the problem with Vancouver's system isn't train capacity, but rather the passenger capacity of the stations themselves. The stations are under built, with only one entrance/exit, small staircases and very narrow/short platforms. They're already experiencing crowding problems on their stations, and the line is nowhere near design capacity.

That's interesting. I've never experienced even a "Dundas" type crowd in those stations; not that my anecdotal evidence means much compared to those who take actual measurements; it's just surprising.

Is crowding actually impacting service as it did at Union? That is, dwell time is starting to suffer as passengers struggle to disembark? Or is it just the public going "this feels packed" because they're simply not used to it.

 

[Forgotten]

That's interesting. I've never experienced even a "Dundas" type crowd in those stations; not that my anecdotal evidence means much compared to those who take actual measurements; it's just surprising.

Is crowding actually impacting service as it did at Union? That is, dwell time is starting to suffer as passengers struggle to disembark? Or is it just the public going "this feels packed" because they're simply not used to it.

Not only are they short but they're also narrow. That is why they're closer to streetcars than our subways. When the salesmen say it's not low capacity because they can run them every 30 seconds (then it'd be equivalent to our subways!) they run into your problem when someone sneezing shuts down the line. It's built cheap because it's not for heavy duty use period.

 

[Hopkins123]

Montreal's system is entirely underground. I don't think there's anything in the choice of car width, that gives it more coverage and more lines.

Nor does it have more coverage. It has only 4 lines, 68 stations, and 69 km. Toronto has 69 stations and 68 km. The Montreal and Toronto systems are surprisingly comparable - though Toronto has a lot of expansion under construction, and Montreal has only the talk that's been going on for 30 years.

The layout of the Montreal Metro seems to be way better than Toronto's though, giving the illusion of greater coverage. They already have their versions of the DRL and Eglinton Crosstown subways in place, so not much more needs to be done to "complete" their system; just looping the Orange Line at Carrefour Laval, Blue Line to St Pierre or Lachine in the west and Roi Rene in the east and the Yellow Line to St Hubert. The LRT to Brossard and Fairview via Gare Centrale is just icing on the cake.