[nfitz]

So yes, 40 metre trains every 3 minutes would be a similar (slightly less I think) capacity to slightly narrower 60 metre trains every 4 minutes. But it easily meets the long-term demand projections at even that frequency. But with a huge ability to increase capacity 300% if they go for 90-metre trains every 2 minutes. 400% if they do the underground section every 90 seconds.

If people are skeptical about OL running every 90s, how do we expect a low-floor LRT system that has to also run on the surface human-operated without grade separation to do likewise?

The underground (central) section of Eglinton is grade separated. It's also being built now with automation. Yes, difficult east of Laird - but the ridership estimates there are much lower, so you can turn 50% of the trains before getting to Scarborough.

Yeah, I admit 90 seconds is pushing it - but that's equally true on both systems - particularly at Waterfront station, where you have an entire train disembarking, at the same time another entire train is trying to load!

The Eglinton Line's final buildout capacity is 15,000 ppdph, the same as the Canada Line.

Ah, yes, that's true. While the Toronto Subway and the Canada Line Skytrain both have peak loading capacities of about 2.55 people/m² or so, the low-flow Toronto (and Ottawa!) vehicles only have about 1.65 people/m². You'd have to convert to high-floor equipment/platforms on the Eglinton Line to do that. However the tunnel diameters are built for this - even for wider trains. So ultimate capacity isn't necessarily ultimate capacity. Either way, we'll all surely be dead, before demand is triple what they estimate for 2041!

This is one of the advantages of a non-PPP approach to design. There's a safety factor of 3 on the capacity in 30 years time. What was the design safety factor for Vancouver? I'm not aware of projects 2030s ridership was of the Canada Line when they announced the start of it?

This is my fear with the Ontario Line (and the new REMs in Montreal). I'm sure capacity will be fine day one. But what when they've extended the line out completely, and it's 2050? Some demands estimates have been close to 28,000 ppdpd for the Ontario Line. So should we design for 90,000? 80,000? The downtown relief line was only being designed for 48,000. Sure, we can make that shorter ... but 30,000 for the Ontario Line seems low - and will be overloaded perhaps in our lifetimes.

The first REM line in Montreal (red line?) is designed for an ultimate capacity of 24,000 per hour (600 per train every 90 seconds ... sure, crush load is higher ... but you can't run every 90 seconds at crush load - we've seen on Line 1 what happens when you do that). What are the actual 2050s ridership forecasts (or heck, 2020s). I haven't seen this.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Ah, yes, that's true. While the Toronto Subway and the Canada Line Skytrain both have peak loading capacities of about 2.55 people/m² or so, the low-flow Toronto (and Ottawa!) vehicles only have about 1.65 people/m². You'd have to convert to high-floor equipment/platforms on the Eglinton Line to do that. However the tunnel diameters are built for this - even for wider trains. So ultimate capacity isn't necessarily ultimate capacity. Either way, we'll all surely be dead, before demand is triple what they estimate for 2041!

At the risk of derailing this thread further into TO transit discussions...

nfitz, we are a bit confused. On the one hand you are saying "not to worry about future capacity for Eglinton Crosstown because we'll all be dead by 2041 anyway" (unlikely given that quite a few of us on here are born after the 90s )

The first REM line in Montreal (red line?) is designed for an ultimate capacity of 24,000 per hour (600 per train every 90 seconds ... sure, crush load is higher ... but you can't run every 90 seconds at crush load - we've seen on Line 1 what happens when you do that). What are the actual 2050s ridership forecasts (or heck, 2020s). I haven't seen this.

And on the other hand, you are asking for demand forecast for year 2050 for the REM and because you are concerned that REM-A capacity will be maxed out by then (which is a fair prediction). With that said, has any transit agency published demand projections for and beyond 2050?

If you are referring to REM-A lines (as per the officially released system map at the Metropolis unveiling), all of the elevated stations should be able to be extended in the distant future. For the underground stations like Eduard Mont Petit, I believe they already built with provisions to extend from the current 80 m long to 100 m (this was mentioned in a Radio Canada interview with CDPQ but I can't find the source link at the moment).

 

[nfitz]

nfitz, we are a bit confused. On the one hand you are saying "not to worry about future capacity for Eglinton Crosstown because we'll all be dead by 2041 anyway" (unlikely given that quite a few of us on here are born after the 90s )

They project 5,500 pphpd in 2041. I said we'd all be dead by the time it's triple the 2041 projection. I'd guess that's 2100 or later. I certainly plan to be here in 2041 ... and 2061!

And on the other hand, you are asking for demand forecast for year 2050 for the REM and because you are concerned that REM-A capacity will be maxed out by then (which is a fair prediction). With that said, has any transit agency published demand projections for and beyond 2050?

. None ... but if 5,500 is for 2041, then by 2050 I think we can assume it hasn't suddenly tripled!

It's a simple question. Where are the long-term ridership projections? Whether they be 2041, 2036, or 2031 is secondary. I've never seen them.

 

[superelevation]

The underground (central) section of Eglinton is grade separated. It's also being built now with automation. Yes, difficult east of Laird - but the ridership estimates there are much lower, so you can turn 50% of the trains before getting to Scarborough.

Yeah, I admit 90 seconds is pushing it - but that's equally true on both systems - particularly at Waterfront station, where you have an entire train disembarking, at the same time another entire train is trying to load!

Ah, yes, that's true. While the Toronto Subway and the Canada Line Skytrain both have peak loading capacities of about 2.55 people/m² or so, the low-flow Toronto (and Ottawa!) vehicles only have about 1.65 people/m². You'd have to convert to high-floor equipment/platforms on the Eglinton Line to do that. However the tunnel diameters are built for this - even for wider trains. So ultimate capacity isn't necessarily ultimate capacity. Either way, we'll all surely be dead, before demand is triple what they estimate for 2041!

This is one of the advantages of a non-PPP approach to design. There's a safety factor of 3 on the capacity in 30 years time. What was the design safety factor for Vancouver? I'm not aware of projects 2030s ridership was of the Canada Line when they announced the start of it?

This is my fear with the Ontario Line (and the new REMs in Montreal). I'm sure capacity will be fine day one. But what when they've extended the line out completely, and it's 2050? Some demands estimates have been close to 28,000 ppdpd for the Ontario Line. So should we design for 90,000? 80,000? The downtown relief line was only being designed for 48,000. Sure, we can make that shorter ... but 30,000 for the Ontario Line seems low - and will be overloaded perhaps in our lifetimes.

The first REM line in Montreal (red line?) is designed for an ultimate capacity of 24,000 per hour (600 per train every 90 seconds ... sure, crush load is higher ... but you can't run every 90 seconds at crush load - we've seen on Line 1 what happens when you do that). What are the actual 2050s ridership forecasts (or heck, 2020s). I haven't seen this.

Metrolinx' predictions here are simply bad, there's no better way to put it. Need evidence of their history of bad ridership predictions? Look at the UP Express on opening . . .

Eglinton is a major corridor, its going to be super busy from day one.

 

[nfitz]

Metrolinx' predictions here are simply bad, there's no better way to put it. Need evidence of their history of bad ridership predictions? Look at the UP Express on opening . . .

I've never seen Metrolinx's ridership projections for the fare level they originally selected. Can you link to them?

 

[superelevation]

Down is the new UP: Thoughts on dismal UP Express ridership

At February 10th’s Metrolinx board meeting, there was an update on the Union Pearson (UP) Express ridership. The news isn’t good, as ridership dropped in the last few months, instead of…

seanmarshall.ca

 

[p_xavier]

The projections for Montréal (STM numbers at least) is that population will reach its peak in 2040 and slowly decrease from there.

 

[nfitz]

Down is the new UP: Thoughts on dismal UP Express ridership

At February 10th’s Metrolinx board meeting, there was an update on the Union Pearson (UP) Express ridership. The news isn’t good, as ridership dropped in the last few months, instead of…

seanmarshall.ca

Ah, I'd forgotten those early estimates and high fares. The source and assumptions behind them remain a mystery. I guess the revised ones are little better, given the subsequent over-crowding, and backtracking over using GO fares to Weston and Bloor.

 

[NoahB]

This passed in my FB feed today. Thought people here would appreciate it if haven't seen it already.
La construction du métro de Montréal en couleurs (1963-1966) | Flickr

 

[NoahB]

REM's website calls the Mascouche Line an "exotic train line"

 

[nfitz]

I wondered what word was mistranslated to exotic, and looking at the French version, the word is "Exo".

The implication is that whoever is doing the translation for REM, doesn't know what Exo is!

 

[NoahB]

I wondered what word was mistranslated to exotic, and looking at the French version, the word is "Exo".

The implication is that whoever is doing the translation for REM, doesn't know what Exo is!

Probably the same person/team who translates "métro léger" (lightweight metro) in French to into "light rail" in English.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Probably the same person/team who translates "métro léger" (lightweight metro) in French to into "light rail" in English.

Must have skipped French class in high school. Wonder what classes Doug Ford skipped when (if) he attended Scarlett Heights Collegiate Institute?

 

[NoahB]

Must have skipped French class in high school. Wonder what classes Doug Ford skipped when (if) he attended Scarlett Heights Collegiate Institute?

Yooo

We are talking about a pension fund's project in Montreal...

I don't like many of Doug Ford's policies, but I can't find many faults with his gov's transit plans (other than maybe the construction speed and costs). If anything, it would be cool if Ontario copies the arrangement Quebec has with the CDPQ. At least the profits from privatizing the new lines would go to a semi-public entity instead of just some random for-profit companies.

But can we at least leave the Douggie snipes to threads more relevant to him?

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Yooo

We are talking about a pension fund's project in Montreal...

I don't like many of Doug Ford's policies, but I can't find many faults with his gov's transit plans (other than maybe the construction speed and costs). If anything, it would be cool if Ontario copies the arrangement Quebec has with the CDPQ. At least the profits from privatizing the new lines would go to a semi-public entity instead of just some random for-profit companies.

But can we at least leave the Douggie snipes to threads more relevant to him?

Given the presence of Metrolinx, highly unlikely an institution like OTPP could suddenly take over transit planning and build (even if OTPP has plenty of infrastructure investment experience abroad). It would essentially mean a downgrade of Metrolinx's overall role in regional transport and potentially encroaching on the job security of the 2500+ mid-level bureaucrats who work out of 97 Front St...