[robmausser]

What about Eglinton East?

Eglinton (and technically Malvern)

When I said Eglinton I meant the entire thing, from the airport to Malvern Town Centre, both east, west and current.

Back during Transit City there was no Eglinton West, the plan was to build the line from the airport to Kennedy GO, and another line, Malvern, which is now Eglinton East.

Even the fact that Malven and Eglinton will be one line now (on the Transit City you had to transfer at Kennedy GO to the Malvern LRT, now Crosstown trains will continue as one line) is an improvement over the original Transit City plan.

 

[Rainforest]

The further the OL goes from Eglinton, the better it will be for Line 1. The OL will simply intercept all the bus passengers coming from the east of Don Mills and heading towards downtown. Travelling all the way to Yonge on any east-west bus route will be a lot slower than getting off at Don Mills and hopping on to the OL.

This is something that University line is already doing. It intercepts people coming from the west so that they don't have to travel all the way to Yonge line.

Building OL up to Steeles will not be a bad idea if we still face overcrowding on Yonge line 20 years later. There are tons of people using Finch East and Steeles East buses to reach the Yonge line and a lot of that traffic can be siphoned off to OL.

The only limitation is the capacity of OL itself. Since it is being built to about 2/3 of the Yonge's capacity, it might become more crowded than Yonge if extended sufficiently far.

 

[Deadpool X]

The only limitation is the capacity of OL itself. Since it is being built to about 2/3 of the Yonge's capacity, it might become more crowded than Yonge if extended sufficiently far.

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes with the GO expansion. But if that ever happens, Line 2 can be continued north on McCowan to Steeles and beyond. Anyone coming from the east of McCowan will hop on to this line instead of crowding the OL.

There isn't that much high density population east of McCowan. I am not expecting people from Pickering or beyond riding on buses to Line 2. They would rather take the GO train.

 

[NoahB]

@NoahB : Thank you for the detailed response. Just to clarify, I actually didn't conflate the contract length with the analysis period. If I gave you that impression, that's my bad - I should have been clearer.

If I had to summarize my concerns, it would be as follows:

• Metrolinx calls the 80m option a "refined" concept. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that wording: I took it to mean "improved" or "preferred".
• I actually don't read the PDBC as unenthusiastic on the 80m trains; in fact, they specifically call it out as having a higher BCR (benefit-to-cost ratio) than the 100m option.
• If they go with the 80m, lower-tph option, I don't see a lot of details on the process of negotiating a capacity increase, who will pay for it, how much it'll cost, etc.
  That is, it feels like value-engineering without a clear path on what to do if you hit service limits.

I actually interpreted this differently: I imagined reprocurement would only happen at contract intervals, implying that the earliest you'll do a service increase is at the close of the first RSSOM contract period.

If the Canada Line is anything to go by, the gov will pay the capital cost of getting the trains. But not sure if the existing maintenance contract covers maintaining the new trains. But I assume it does.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Wonder if the acceleration and braking will be more extreme with the Ontario Line trains. Or will the inertia dampeners work as advertised?

Or seatbelts at least?

From link.

 

[Divas S.]

^^girl what???

 

[officedweller]

[*]If they go with the 80m, lower-tph option, I don't see a lot of details on the process of negotiating a capacity increase, who will pay for it, how much it'll cost, etc.
That is, it feels like value-engineering without a clear path on what to do if you hit service limits.
[/LIST]

I actually interpreted this differently: I imagined reprocurement would only happen at contract intervals, implying that the earliest you'll do a service increase is at the close of the first RSSOM contract period.

By comparison with SkyTrain MKIIIs and Canada Line, my understanding is that it is difficult to "insert" a car into a train and that the preferred option to increase capacity would be to purchase more trains.

That's what TransLink has done with Canada Line - ordered more 2-car trains to add 50% more trains to the fleet. The operator will benefit from a renegotiated contract with more service provided.
For the Expo line, TransLink just announced an order for new 5-car MKIII trains. They are not buying any cars to insert into the existing 4-car MKIII trains.

The purchase of more vehicles (by Metrolinx) will probably proceed on an "as needed" basis and the operations contract would be renegotiated to include the additional trains.

So if MetroLink goes with the 4-car option, they probably won't ever lengthen those trains to 5 cars (although they may in future purchase 5 car trains to mix with the 4 car trains).

 

[gweed123]

Ill say it repeatedly; we shed all of the bad ideas and kept all the good ones from Transit City. I am absolutely not sour grapes how things turned out in that regard at all. Finch, Eglinton (and technically Malvern) and the Waterfront LRT were the best lines from that plan imo.

I'm not too keen on Eglinton West being buried, but thats more about economic waste, not a bad plan per say.

Sheppard LRT was bonkers, to transfer to an LRT from an existing subway. The best plan for the Scarborough RT was to refurbish it and extend it to Malvern TC using the existing ICTS system with new Mark 3 trains as the 2006 TTC plan suggested. It was the best bang for the buck, there was no reason to convert it to LRT.

Don Mills makes more sense as the Ontario Line/DRL, and Jane LRT is not a bad idea per say, just the lowest ridership and last in line.

Interesting analysis. One of the things that really irked me about Transit City was the insistence on in-median at-grade LRT as the "default" configuration, when in many instances another running option or another technology would have been better.

For example, the Eglinton Crosstown would have been so much more useful if it had been built using Mark III ICTS technology. It could have been tunnelled just like today, but the eastern portion could have been built as elevated (since ICTS wouldn't allow for at-grade in-median), and it could have been connected to an upgraded SRT. A completely grade-separated rapid transit line running from Mount Dennis (and potentially eventually Pearson) to Malvern would have been a game-changer. And the amount of money saved from not having to convert the entire SRT guideway to LRT would have more than covered the additional cost of elevating the eastern segment.

Yes, Transit City was a bold plan, but it was hardly Year Zero for transit planning in Toronto. A lot of really good and sensible plans were killed when Transit City was adopted.

 

[Rainforest]

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes with the GO expansion. But if that ever happens, Line 2 can be continued north on McCowan to Steeles and beyond. Anyone coming from the east of McCowan will hop on to this line instead of crowding the OL.

There isn't that much high density population east of McCowan. I am not expecting people from Pickering or beyond riding on buses to Line 2. They would rather take the GO train.

I wouldn't extend Line 2 further north from Sheppard. And even if it gets extended, that won't provide any relief for either the OL or Yonge. As you correctly stated, not much density east of McCowan and north of Sheppard, and the Malvern residents will use Line 2 anyway.

Riders that might overwhelm the OL, will be mostly originating from the area between Don Mills and Kennedy.

A "Relief Line 2" may be needed before too long. I have some hope that RL2 can take a cheaper route into downtown, such as under Dundas and then overground in the Don Valley. Since the Queen / King corridor will be already served by RL1 = OL, there will be no need to send RL2 into the exact same place.

 

[micheal_can]

Maybe what should be done is to bite bullet and create an express line following Line 1. Have it only stop at interchange stations. Have it end at Union. Putting other linees in and calling them a relief line is only going to make matters worse. The Subway system is almost as busy as New York's, and they have been smart and put in express lines. Maybe it is time the TTC does it too.

 

[JSF-1]

I wouldn't extend Line 2 further north from Sheppard. And even if it gets extended, that won't provide any relief for either the OL or Yonge. As you correctly stated, not much density east of McCowan and north of Sheppard, and the Malvern residents will use Line 2 anyway.

Riders that might overwhelm the OL, will be mostly originating from the area between Don Mills and Kennedy.

A "Relief Line 2" may be needed before too long. I have some hope that RL2 can take a cheaper route into downtown, such as under Dundas and then overground in the Don Valley. Since the Queen / King corridor will be already served by RL1 = OL, there will be no need to send RL2 into the exact same place.

Metrolinx already hinted at this in a report from awhile back (it's in this thread somewhere). The RL2 looked like it would run from Woodbine to somewhere (Dundas West?) via Dundas I think.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The further the OL goes from Eglinton, the better it will be for Line 1. The OL will simply intercept all the bus passengers coming from the east of Don Mills and heading towards downtown. Travelling all the way to Yonge on any east-west bus route will be a lot slower than getting off at Don Mills and hopping on to the OL.

This is something that University line is already doing. It intercepts people coming from the west so that they don't have to travel all the way to Yonge line.

Building OL up to Steeles will not be a bad idea if we still face overcrowding on Yonge line 20 years later. There are tons of people using Finch East and Steeles East buses to reach the Yonge line and a lot of that traffic can be siphoned off to OL.

The only limitation is the capacity of OL itself. Since it is being built to about 2/3 of the Yonge's capacity, it might become more crowded than Yonge if extended sufficiently far.

It probably won't happen in our lifetimes with the GO expansion. But if that ever happens, Line 2 can be continued north on McCowan to Steeles and beyond. Anyone coming from the east of McCowan will hop on to this line instead of crowding the OL.

There isn't that much high density population east of McCowan. I am not expecting people from Pickering or beyond riding on buses to Line 2. They would rather take the GO train.

I wouldn't extend Line 2 further north from Sheppard. And even if it gets extended, that won't provide any relief for either the OL or Yonge. As you correctly stated, not much density east of McCowan and north of Sheppard, and the Malvern residents will use Line 2 anyway.

Riders that might overwhelm the OL, will be mostly originating from the area between Don Mills and Kennedy.

A "Relief Line 2" may be needed before too long. I have some hope that RL2 can take a cheaper route into downtown, such as under Dundas and then overground in the Don Valley. Since the Queen / King corridor will be already served by RL1 = OL, there will be no need to send RL2 into the exact same place.

If we are going to use lighter metro vehicles and go above ground, then we should be aiming to get the OL the Finch/Don Mills and Dundas West round one IMO. I could go either way on a 2 stop extension further from Sheppard on Bloor Danforth. @Rainforest is correct, but would not be the end of the world if they did either. Middlefield and Finch would be potential stops. Also, the Finch LRT would be extended if they did.

 

[Deadpool X]

Maybe what should be done is to bite bullet and create an express line following Line 1. Have it only stop at interchange stations. Have it end at Union. Putting other linees in and calling them a relief line is only going to make matters worse. The Subway system is almost as busy as New York's, and they have been smart and put in express lines. Maybe it is time the TTC does it too.

Having new lines not only adds capacity but also extends the reach. Adding express lines on Yonge will only add capacity but not the reach. People will still be riding slow buses for half an hour before they even reach Yonge.

Also, it is very likely that adding express line on Yonge will be costlier because they will have to accommodate existing tunnels and stations, not to mention that it will be highly disruptive for an already congested line.

A new line won't have any of these problems, while it will also extend the reach of the subway system.

 

[asher__jo]

Maybe what should be done is to bite bullet and create an express line following Line 1. Have it only stop at interchange stations. Have it end at Union. Putting other linees in and calling them a relief line is only going to make matters worse. The Subway system is almost as busy as New York's, and they have been smart and put in express lines. Maybe it is time the TTC does it too.

Back on this idea are we?

 

[Rainforest]

Maybe what should be done is to bite bullet and create an express line following Line 1. Have it only stop at interchange stations. Have it end at Union. Putting other linees in and calling them a relief line is only going to make matters worse. The Subway system is almost as busy as New York's, and they have been smart and put in express lines. Maybe it is time the TTC does it too.

I think, literally "Express Line 1" will be too expensive to build, if it has to be constructed under the active regular Line 1.

The best shot would be a new subway line running under Bay St in downtown, then swinging to the Yonge corridor somewhere between St Clair and Sheppard, and taking over the northern section of the existing subway. Davisville may be a good candidate to merge the two lines, since it is an above-ground station.