News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 2.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 1.3K     0 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
1,927
It means different rolling stock, different technology (possibly). Optimizing the system to the needs, not building around a legacy standard which imposes arbitrary constraints.
What I don’t get is the feeling that Toronto subway standards based on technological constraints of 70 years ago as the be all and end all. The epitome of mass transit perfection.

Advocate for higher ultimate capacity sure. But don’t equate every attempt of innovation as counter to goals.

I was using the Toronto subway just as an example of a higher capacity system, not as the standards benchmark. For sure the new line can use new equipment type, and not be bound by the compatibility with the existing lines, if the new equipment works better.

The concern is the train size constraints imposed by the selected routing. Those constraints will be in place for any equipment type.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,368
Reaction score
1,927
Aren't we also getting GO RER as additional capacity downtown? Not matter how fat the pipe eventually it will be filled. Why not plan for parallel lines to supplement capacity in 30 years?

GO RER will mostly serve a different market. It will handle some of the intra-416 trips, but mostly will be filled by riders from outside the 416.

I'm also a bit puzzled how 34kppdpd will fill in 15 years, but increasing that by 6k extends the life by 20 or 30 years?

If the difference in max capacity is only 6K then I would not be too worried.

But I think the real difference will be greater than that, and the stated 34K for OL versus ~ 40K for the Yonge line isn't apples-to-apples. The OL's 34K will be the absolute maximum it can achieve, with automatic train operation and the highest frequency, one train leaves the platform and the next train pulls in immediately.

While the ~ 40K for Yonge would be the present operation protocol with some improvements, such as faster terminal turnbacks.

If the Yonge line eventually gets converted to the same operation protocol they have in mind for the OL, then the Yonge line will probably reach 45K or even 50K.

The train geometry is the ultimate constraint. The operation, on the other hand, can be improved / sped up with some nontrivial but manageable amount of investment. The ultimate capacity should be proportional to the train size; no miracles here.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,021
Reaction score
18,403
City:
Toronto
GO RER will mostly serve a different market. It will handle some of the intra-416 trips, but mostly will be filled by riders from outside the 416.

If the difference in max capacity is only 6K then I would not be too worried.

But I think the real difference will be greater than that, and the stated 34K for OL versus ~ 40K for the Yonge line isn't apples-to-apples. The OL's 34K will be the absolute maximum it can achieve, with automatic train operation and the highest frequency, one train leaves the platform and the next train pulls in immediately.

While the ~ 40K for Yonge would be the present operation protocol with some improvements, such as faster terminal turnbacks.

If the Yonge line eventually gets converted to the same operation protocol they have in mind for the OL, then the Yonge line will probably reach 45K or even 50K.

The train geometry is the ultimate constraint. The operation, on the other hand, can be improved / sped up with some nontrivial but manageable amount of investment. The ultimate capacity should be proportional to the train size; no miracles here.

I can see OL and Yonge Extension together supplanting the Richmond Hill line completely.

AoD
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,875
Reaction score
10,046
City:
Toronto
I'm not suggesting that the money from the savings of choosing this technology be put in some sort of savings account to save for another relief line a generation from now. I'm simply suggesting that the opportunity cost of spending so much money to future proof for an event that may not occur for several generations unduly limits our ability to improve the situation today.

The reality is that with the funds we have we can have a line that goes from Liberty Village to the Science Centre, with marginally reduced capacities, but still enough to service decades of ridership growth - or we can have a line that goes from Osgoode to, maybe, if you are lucky, Thorncliffe Park. Then you have to wait another decade for more funds to turn up to build the rest of the thing. But hey - you would have 3 more trains worth of capacity every hour for the event that, 30 to 50 years from now, it may go over capacity.

Is that a better alternative than having the line now, for the whole route? In ten years we can then have the line extended to Sheppard, instead of Eglinton because of it.

Is the benefit of having that marginal additional capacity of 4,000pphd which won't be needed for at least a generation, if not more, worth more than having the additional service to LV and the Science Centre today? that's the comparison that has to be made. The timelines for when that additional capacity is required is simply too far off, with too many unknowns, for it to be an appropriate call.

The opportunity cost is simply too great.

If that extra capacity is indeed required 40 years from now, it likely will only be "good" for a few additional years anyways before even the TRs go over capacity. In which case you need the relief line for the relief line anyway. You may have staved off a major investment in better transit coverage by a decade, but in the process you have reduced transit coverage for a generation before hand.
 

north-of-anything

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
384
Reaction score
564
City:
Toronto
If we need something built now, hopefully something that won't interfere with VIA HFR plans, then we need to keep building once this opens to keep pace with Toronto's growth. We can't afford to have any more 20-year periods of nothing new opening up.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,021
Reaction score
18,403
City:
Toronto
I'm not suggesting that the money from the savings of choosing this technology be put in some sort of savings account to save for another relief line a generation from now. I'm simply suggesting that the opportunity cost of spending so much money to future proof for an event that may not occur for several generations unduly limits our ability to improve the situation today.

The reality is that with the funds we have we can have a line that goes from Liberty Village to the Science Centre, with marginally reduced capacities, but still enough to service decades of ridership growth - or we can have a line that goes from Osgoode to, maybe, if you are lucky, Thorncliffe Park. Then you have to wait another decade for more funds to turn up to build the rest of the thing. But hey - you would have 3 more trains worth of capacity every hour for the event that, 30 to 50 years from now, it may go over capacity.

Is that a better alternative than having the line now, for the whole route? In ten years we can then have the line extended to Sheppard, instead of Eglinton because of it.

Is the benefit of having that marginal additional capacity of 4,000pphd which won't be needed for at least a generation, if not more, worth more than having the additional service to LV and the Science Centre today? that's the comparison that has to be made. The timelines for when that additional capacity is required is simply too far off, with too many unknowns, for it to be an appropriate call.

The opportunity cost is simply too great.

If that extra capacity is indeed required 40 years from now, it likely will only be "good" for a few additional years anyways before even the TRs go over capacity. In which case you need the relief line for the relief line anyway. You may have staved off a major investment in better transit coverage by a decade, but in the process you have reduced transit coverage for a generation before hand.

If the province can justify paying full price to bury EW and SSE, it has no excuse for not paying a small fraction more for this project, which will be used far more intensively than even the rosiest of projections for them. "The funds we have" is not some set rule in the greater scheme of things.

AoD
 
Last edited:

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
118
Reaction score
208
I'm not suggesting that the money from the savings of choosing this technology be put in some sort of savings account to save for another relief line a generation from now. I'm simply suggesting that the opportunity cost of spending so much money to future proof for an event that may not occur for several generations unduly limits our ability to improve the situation today.

The reality is that with the funds we have we can have a line that goes from Liberty Village to the Science Centre, with marginally reduced capacities, but still enough to service decades of ridership growth - or we can have a line that goes from Osgoode to, maybe, if you are lucky, Thorncliffe Park. Then you have to wait another decade for more funds to turn up to build the rest of the thing. But hey - you would have 3 more trains worth of capacity every hour for the event that, 30 to 50 years from now, it may go over capacity.

Is that a better alternative than having the line now, for the whole route? In ten years we can then have the line extended to Sheppard, instead of Eglinton because of it.

Is the benefit of having that marginal additional capacity of 4,000pphd which won't be needed for at least a generation, if not more, worth more than having the additional service to LV and the Science Centre today? that's the comparison that has to be made. The timelines for when that additional capacity is required is simply too far off, with too many unknowns, for it to be an appropriate call.

The opportunity cost is simply too great.

If that extra capacity is indeed required 40 years from now, it likely will only be "good" for a few additional years anyways before even the TRs go over capacity. In which case you need the relief line for the relief line anyway. You may have staved off a major investment in better transit coverage by a decade, but in the process you have reduced transit coverage for a generation before hand.

In regards to your point "or we can have a line that goes from Osgoode to, maybe, if you are lucky, Thorncliffe Park". Going to just Thorncliffe would be foolish. You might as well go to Eglinton as that is another 1.5 KM and will help reduce the crowding south of Eglinton Station on the Yonge Line. If this line does not go to Eglinton in its first phase than it is stupid and defeats the purpose of easing the ridership on the Yonge Line. I am not sure if you have noticed my friend but there are close to 100 high-rise condominimums slated to be built in the next 5-7 years from Eglinton and Leslie to Eglinton and Birchmount. As soon as Eglinton Crosstown is built the Yonge Line will be a disaster as there will be thousands of additional passengers living at all these developments that will want to go Downtown. Lets get the shovels in the ground and get this line built.
 

sche

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
127
Reaction score
240
I did some eyeballing of OL turning radii (Very rough estimates!)

West section:
1601662336397.png


Central Section:
1601662439987.png


Gerrard Portal:
1601662369607.png
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,875
Reaction score
10,046
City:
Toronto
If the province can justify paying full price to bury EW and SSE, it has no excuse for not paying a small fraction more for this project, which will be used far more intensively than even the rosiest of projections for them. "The funds we have" is not some set rule in the greater scheme of things.

AoD
I don’t disagree on that front. But if we use the premise that the province has $30 billion to spend - you could and I say should be trying to find ways to create as much value as possible. And that means not spending billions on marginal amounts of additional capacity. Eglinton west is a huge waste of money, but as I said, that doesn’t mean we have to go waste billions here too.

even if the province does have unlimited funds, shouldn’t value for money always be a parameter? Is billions really worth those few thousand additional peak riders? Why spend 50% more to achieve 3-5% additional benefit?
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
2,563
I don’t disagree on that front. But if we use the premise that the province has $30 billion to spend - you could and I say should be trying to find ways to create as much value as possible. And that means not spending billions on marginal amounts of additional capacity. Eglinton west is a huge waste of money, but as I said, that doesn’t mean we have to go waste billions here too.

even if the province does have unlimited funds, shouldn’t value for money always be a parameter? Is billions really worth those few thousand additional peak riders? Why spend 50% more to achieve 3-5% additional benefit?

This line by far will offer the most value if built properly. I don't think the cost to bury it or implement higher capacity design choices (longer trains/stations, etc.) will cost 50% more.

If we're okay with spending billions to eliminate one transfer, this should be a no-brainer.
 

Darwinkgo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
479
Reaction score
89
Building underground costs a lot more, especially underground stations. $100 million more for the same functionality for each station is something to avoid.

Going underground and with longer platforms, and wider trains compounds the problem, since underground stations' costs grow by the square law, not linearly. And those choices ripple throughout the system. Each growth in any dimension of the ultimate rolling stock adds cost to almost all of the system.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,021
Reaction score
18,403
City:
Toronto
I don’t disagree on that front. But if we use the premise that the province has $30 billion to spend - you could and I say should be trying to find ways to create as much value as possible. And that means not spending billions on marginal amounts of additional capacity. Eglinton west is a huge waste of money, but as I said, that doesn’t mean we have to go waste billions here too.

even if the province does have unlimited funds, shouldn’t value for money always be a parameter? Is billions really worth those few thousand additional peak riders? Why spend 50% more to achieve 3-5% additional benefit?

We have a scenario where we are literally spending extra billions to provide zero additional capacity improvement over other options, I find it unconvincing you are expecting that this project should cut corners even though it is the one that will have the highest likelihood and promise of exceeding projections - and that we should not even be willing to entertain the possibility of additional capacity. Is it going to cost billions more to keep that possibility open? Can we create and implement designs where not all the hard cost had to be borne on day 1 - instead of focusing on elements that cannot to be done cost effectively later on? Spec it out and see how much that will cost - don't say no right off when one had already turned the other cheek for all the unnecessary and frivolous yeses elsewhere.

AoD
 
Last edited:

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,875
Reaction score
10,046
City:
Toronto
We have a scenario where we are literally spending extra billions to provide zero additional capacity improvement over other options, I find it unconvincing you are expecting that this project should cut corners even though it is the one that will have the highest likelihood and promise of exceeding projections - and that we should not even be willing to entertain the possibility of additional capacity. Is it going to cost billions more to keep that possibility open? Can we create and implement designs where not all the hard cost had to be borne on day 1 - instead of focusing on elements that cannot to be done cost effectively later on? Spec it out and see how much that will cost - don't say no right off when one had already turned the other cheek for all the unnecessary and frivolous yeses elsewhere.

AoD
why does this have to be a comparison? You keep bringing up Eglinton West - which I repeatedly maintain is hugely wasteful. The criticism needs to go there, not here. The angle shouldn't be "they are wasteful over there so we should be wasteful here".. it should be "this is a good, efficient project - we should do the same on Eglinton".

And I mean they are already doing that here. Metrolinx is speccing out a project with more capacity than the Yonge line has today. It's very far from an underbuilt line.. if it does ever go over capacity it'll be in the top 3 busiest subway lines on the continent, behind only the Yonge line and the Lexington line in NYC.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,021
Reaction score
18,403
City:
Toronto
why does this have to be a comparison? You keep bringing up Eglinton West - which I repeatedly maintain is hugely wasteful. The criticism needs to go there, not here. The angle shouldn't be "they are wasteful over there so we should be wasteful here".. it should be "this is a good, efficient project - we should do the same on Eglinton".

And I mean they are already doing that here. Metrolinx is speccing out a project with more capacity than the Yonge line has today. It's very far from an underbuilt line.. if it does ever go over capacity it'll be in the top 3 busiest subway lines on the continent.

Why does it have to be a comparison? Because we have one proponent under one government that is handling all 3 projects, and if the amount of capital funding is limited we should aim to spending it in a way that will provide the greatest long term benefit. I don't consider judicious overbuilding for a line with excellent projected usage and extension potential to be less deserving than vanity or political spend of no benefit. The fact is, we aren't doing the same in Eglinton or SSE - and the resources that could have been spent to ensure flex in the future is not available because of that decision.

As to your claim that Metrolinx is speccing out the project with more capacity than Yonge has currently - you are literally comparing the max for OL with the min for Yonge:


1601670200115.png

(IBC 2019 - http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...n/benefitscases/20190725_Ontario_Line_IBC.PDF)

1601670336276.png


Note - the current target capacity of 28K is based on the 1.1K observed (a min), not 1.45K design. Also did the IBC model extension scenarios (particularly northward from Eglinton) and the impact that has on capacity? We know that will have a serious impact on ridership given how the network is shaping up) but I don't see any evidence of such work.

Now, given the specs won't be finalized until the bids come in, there is wiggle-room - but it is incumbent upon Metrolinx to insist on it (with an eye on the cost delta of course).

AoD
 
Last edited:

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,875
Reaction score
10,046
City:
Toronto
Why does it have to be a comparison? Because we have one proponent under one government that is handling all 3 projects, and if the amount of capital funding is limited we should aim to spending it in a way that will provide the greatest long term benefit. I don't consider judicious overbuilding for a line with excellent projected usage and extension potential to be less deserving than vanity or political spend of no benefit. The fact is, we aren't doing the same in Eglinton or SSE - and the resources that could have been spent to ensure flex in the future is not available because of that decision.

As to your claim that Metrolinx is speccing out the project with more capacity than Yonge has currently - you are literally comparing the max for OL with the min for Yonge:

Note - the current target capacity of 28K is based on the 1.1K observed, not 1.45K design.

AoD
I largely don't disagree with your first paragraph.. I'm just saying the fight isn't here to squeeze a few benefits out, it's over there to stop the bleeding.

The Yonge line has a capacity of about 32,000 PPHD right now as they are running 29 trains in peak hour, so 29x1,100= 31,900. That's at the very least the same ballpark as the Ontario Line. Even if the Ontario line ends up slightly lower, it'll be in the same ballpark. That in reality is a huge amount of throughput - the majority of metro networks on the planet don't reach that level of demand. There are probably only a handful of subway lines globally that have that level of ridership.
 

Top