News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 13K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.3K     0 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
3,746
City:
Toronto
The subway gets put under Queen because the one term chief planner and failed mayoral candidate thought that her office at city hall needed not one, not two, not three, but four subway stations within 100 metres of 100 Queen West. Her papers also highlighted the importance of bringing much needed rapid transit to the fast growing tent city at Moss Park. And by going Queen we would not be doing anything that might interfere with her precious streetcar mall on King.
It was put under Queen Street for a multitude of reasons. 1) It was cheaper and easier. 2) They wanted to better serve the northern part of downtown, instead of duplicating the Union Station Rail Corridor. This also meant better serving locations of interest namely ryerson students. Since the line will be travelling between the Financial District and the University, they can better convince both groups to use the DRL rather than going through Bloor-Yonge.
Building on that failure, the father of the failed Scarborough RT had to get his two cents in and demand that we use his capacity challenged remote controlled toy trains and we have to bring it above ground just as the city is finally getting ready to bury his first kid/mistake. There must always be one monument to Schabas' failure in the city at all times. Have fun cramming people on to the full from day 1 sardine cans when the Yonge line has an unexpected emergency shutdown.

Third failure is on the professional fools at MetroLinkZ who fall for this snake oil time after time. (Or are they the pushers?)
Toy trains? Do not compare the Ontario Line with the SRT. The Ontario Line isn't some new fangled technology, its extremely standard metro technology that is being used in Paris, Sydney, and will be used in Montreal and Honolulu; amongst a ton of other cities. It is far more standard than the TR. If we're being objective for a moment, the existing TTC Subway system is more of a snake oil toy train system than this line.
The moment they decided on a major detour and deviation of the route away from Queen is when it should have triggered a full holistic review of the entire thing. Hell it should have happened when the planning dummies had second thoughts and pulled the subway down to East Harbour. Both bureaucracies failed.
The moment they decided to tunnel the DRL directly underneath a Rail Corridor they should've triggered a full holistic review of the entire thing, which they did and the result is the Ontario Line, a far more reasonable use of money for a service that will be just as good if not better than the original DRL plan in terms of alignment (no more going down 4 storeys just to get to the station platform).
The amount of bending over that morons on every level do just to recycle and reuse the stupid tiny streetcar station under Queen station is baffling. A tiny piece of infrastructure from the 1950s is dictating what to do on a $10 billion project. God damn ridiculous.
Who is doing this? Reusing the stupid tiny streetcar stations (and by reusing what they actually mean is the section will be reconfigured to a new concourse level, so nothing is actually being "reused") is more of a "haha check out what we're doing with this cute piece of Toronto History" rather than actual policy that politicians are bending over for. Do you seriously think someone at the highest level is going "We have this tiny streetcar station under Queen, we must do everything we can in order to reuse this segment for our station"? Of course not.
Then instead of listening to the career RT shill they need to be looking at the future of this should-be subway and the problems of having trains that will be maxed out on day 1 and incompatible with everything else on the subway system. NO, removing the few remaining seats from the trains is not a solution just because you decided to create the problem to begin with by listening to a senile old consultant and taking his word as gospel.

The line should be a full subway and should be buried under King but because of these idiots and bozos, it zig zags across the downtown and it will royally mess up both Queen Street and King Street for half a decade anyway and what we will get stuck with still won't be adequate for the present let alone the future.
This is a subway, full stop. This isn't light rail, this isn't light metro, this is a metro/subway. This is standard Metro technology that will have more capacity on opening day than Line 1 has today. Sure there could be an argument for wanting to make this line compatible with the rest of our network, but that doesn't mean this is some cheap toy train. This is as Subway as you can possibly get. As for why its under Queen Street, I already explained why.
 
Last edited:

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
751
Reaction score
1,740
Toy trains? Do not compare the Ontario Line with the SRT. The Ontario Line isn't some new fangled technology, its extremely standard metro technology that is being used in Paris, Sydney, and will be used in Montreal and Honolulu; amongst a ton of other cities. It is far more standard than the TR. If we're being objective for a moment, the existing TTC Subway system is more of a snake oil toy train system than this line.
The TRs have become another great example of "Toronto Exceptionalism", in that some people believe this city is somehow so unique and different we can't possible use the same solutions as other places (City Council perpetuates this constantly though, with their need for time-wasting "Made In Toronto" approaches to even the smallest problem, to be fair). For once we're actually looking at what works in other places and implementing it, which seems like a pretty solid plan.
The moment they decided to tunnel the DRL directly underneath a Rail Corridor they should've triggered a full holistic review of the entire thing, which they did and the result is the Ontario Line, a far more reasonable use of money for a service that will be just as good if not better than the original DRL plan in terms of alignment (no more going down 4 storeys just to get to the station platform).
Also, in addition to the station depths, the DRL station alignments were often incredibly bad. All the subway transfers were somehow even worse than Bloor-Yonge is, especially Queen. Plus the total insanity of putting Queen and Osgoode's platforms both inside the Line 1 U, as if the only place anyone would ever go to on the subway was City Hall. It was like the line was only invented to ferry people from Pape to City Hall and back again, and they didn't consider any other uses for it (the absurd Queen transfer would have been really annoying for anyone trying to go from Line 1, to the DRL, to go work at East Harbour, for example). For the many issues there can be with Metrolinx, they've done a much better job designing a subway that actually works as part of a user-friendly network of transit (at least in terms of transfers anyway) than the DRL would have been.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,014
Reaction score
10,859
City:
Toronto
The TRs have become another great example of "Toronto Exceptionalism", in that some people believe this city is somehow so unique and different we can't possible use the same solutions as other places (City Council perpetuates this constantly though, with their need for time-wasting "Made In Toronto" approaches to even the smallest problem, to be fair). For once we're actually looking at what works in other places and implementing it, which seems like a pretty solid plan.

Also, in addition to the station depths, the DRL station alignments were often incredibly bad. All the subway transfers were somehow even worse than Bloor-Yonge is, especially Queen. Plus the total insanity of putting Queen and Osgoode's platforms both inside the Line 1 U, as if the only place anyone would ever go to on the subway was City Hall. It was like the line was only invented to ferry people from Pape to City Hall and back again, and they didn't consider any other uses for it (the absurd Queen transfer would have been really annoying for anyone trying to go from Line 1, to the DRL, to go work at East Harbour, for example). For the many issues there can be with Metrolinx, they've done a much better job designing a subway that actually works as part of a user-friendly network of transit (at least in terms of transfers anyway) than the DRL would have been.
The passengers may not all "transfer" to or from the Ontario Line to Line 1 at Osgoode or Queen stations. Why should they? When they can walk the last blocks to the office buildings where they work, or shop at Eaton's Centre. They are not like Bloor-Yonge or St. George Stations, which was NOT their final destination.
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
346
Reaction score
529
as if the only place anyone would ever go to on the subway was City Hall
Would've been really convenient for the City Hall bureaucrats! I admit that it is kind of romantic to have a "City Hall Station", but it makes no sense and it would've just bypassed two important subway stations! Honestly, what were they thinking? 😂
The passengers may not all "transfer" to or from the Ontario Line to Line 1 at Osgoode or Queen stations. Why should they? When they can walk the last blocks to the office buildings where they work, or shop at Eaton's Centre. They are not like Bloor-Yonge or St. George Stations, which was NOT their final destination.
Yes, but not everyone wants to walk such a long distance. Doesn't seem like a good argument, considering how many people commute to the Financial District and how important Union Station is as a transportation hub. The fact that this is of the most important employment hubs in the entire region means that we can't dismiss the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people. Some people like to walk, but many are commuting in from faraway suburbs and the last thing you want to do is make their journey even more tedious.
We can't just say, "it's okay, we'll build a City Hall station for the bureaucrats, but the rest of you people can just walk 10-15 minutes."
 

11th

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
931
Reaction score
395
Would've been really convenient for the City Hall bureaucrats! I admit that it is kind of romantic to have a "City Hall Station", but it makes no sense and it would've just bypassed two important subway stations! Honestly, what were they thinking? 😂

Yes, but not everyone wants to walk such a long distance. Doesn't seem like a good argument, considering how many people commute to the Financial District and how important Union Station is as a transportation hub. The fact that this is of the most important employment hubs in the entire region means that we can't dismiss the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people. Some people like to walk, but many are commuting in from faraway suburbs and the last thing you want to do is make their journey even more tedious.
We can't just say, "it's okay, we'll build a City Hall station for the bureaucrats, but the rest of you people can just walk 10-15 minutes."
5 minutes walk gets you to King or Dundas from Queen. I don't see that being a long distance. 400m to a suburbanite is nothing.
 

Nate_theUrbanist

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
6
Reaction score
12
Would've been really convenient for the City Hall bureaucrats! I admit that it is kind of romantic to have a "City Hall Station", but it makes no sense and it would've just bypassed two important subway stations! Honestly, what were they thinking? 😂

Yes, but not everyone wants to walk such a long distance. Doesn't seem like a good argument, considering how many people commute to the Financial District and how important Union Station is as a transportation hub. The fact that this is of the most important employment hubs in the entire region means that we can't dismiss the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people. Some people like to walk, but many are commuting in from faraway suburbs and the last thing you want to do is make their journey even more tedious.
We can't just say, "it's okay, we'll build a City Hall station for the bureaucrats, but the rest of you people can just walk 10-15 minutes."
I think you're forgetting GO here. By the time to Ontario Line is finished, we'd hopefully have GO RER running 100%. For people heading towards Union Station, it would be far more economical to have them just take GO from their suburban neighbourhoods. Especially if we get fare intergration, taking GO and walking a few blocks via Path might be preferable for suburban commuters.

Either way, I'd argue you'd have less disruption and likely lower costs tunneling under Queen instead of King. In front of Old City Hall is really the only part of downtown you *could* shut down completely. Couldn't do that anywhere on King.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
This is a subway, full stop. This isn't light rail, this isn't light metro, this is a metro/subway. This is standard Metro technology that will have more capacity on opening day than Line 1 has today. Sure there could be an argument for wanting to make this line compatible with the rest of our network, but that doesn't mean this is some cheap toy train. This is as Subway as you can possibly get. As for why its under Queen Street, I already explained why.
Is that true? I thought that on opening day it would have a capacity of 34*600 = 20400, which is definitely less than line 1. I agree with everything else you said.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
3,746
City:
Toronto
Is that true? I thought that on opening day it would have a capacity of 34*600 = 20400, which is definitely less than line 1. I agree with everything else you said.
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers if we assume all cars can hold the same number of passengers (realistically it doesn't, but for the sake of this comparison, the variation is fairly minimal). At 90s headways, or 40 tph, that's 36.6k PPHPD, significantly more than than Line 1 under the block signalling system which is at 26200 PPHPD. After ATC, yes Line 1 will once again have a much larger PPHPD than the Ontario Line, but if the last 70 years are any indication, its going to be A LONG TIME before that 36.6k becomes a significant problem, and at that point we can easily justify building a new line.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers on the conservative side. At 90s headways, or 40 tph, that's 36.6k PPHPD, significantly more than than Line 1 under the block signalling system which is at 26200 PPHPD. After ATC, yes Line 1 will once again have a much larger PPHPD than the Ontario Line, but if the last 70 years are any indication, its going to be A LONG TIME before that 36.6k becomes a significant problem, and at that point we can easily justify building a new line.
Those estimates seem reasonable. Even if that's not planned for opening day, I get what you mean. Why do you think the train capacity numbers in the PDBC are so much lower than your estimate? (750 vs 916.7)
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
3,746
City:
Toronto
Those estimates seem reasonable. Even if that's not planned for opening day, I get what you mean. Why do you think the train capacity numbers in the PDBC are so much lower than your estimate? (750 vs 916.7)
I'm not sure, but its likely that the PDBC is based off older estimates - perhaps assuming narrower trains (remember that they are still working on the fine details, and whatever assumptions they made when they wrote during the PDBC almost certainly do not reflect current plans). The most up to date publicly available specifications assume 3m wide and 100m long trains, which matches the Metropolis almost perfectly (3035 mm). Also I believe I have seen the 36k PPHPD marker written in an official document or press release however I can't exactly say for sure.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
I'm not sure, but its likely that the PDBC is based off older estimates - perhaps assuming narrower trains (remember that they are still working on the fine details, and whatever assumptions they made when they wrote during the PDBC almost certainly do not reflect current plans). The most up to date publicly available specifications assume 3m wide and 100m long trains, which matches the Metropolis almost perfectly (3035 mm). Also I believe I have seen the 36k PPHPD marker written in an official document or press release however I can't exactly say for sure.
I'm having a hard time tracking down the 1100 people capacity on the 120m Alstom Metropolis TS. I keep finding the same dead link. And that number seems high to me. It's the same as the TRs which are significantly bigger. Full longitudinal seating accounts for some of that, but not all. Plus, the 76.20m x 2.94m Metropolis trains on the REM only have a capacity of 600 which would imply a capacity around 800 on the OL trains. If you do come across that 36k PPHPD figure again I'd like to see it.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
3,746
City:
Toronto
Is it really 100m now? The PDBC changed it from 100 to 80, so that's a relief! :)
That's new. The only mention of 80m was an option to start at 80m long trains on opening day, but still build the line with 100m long platforms

I'm having a hard time tracking down the 1100 people capacity on the 120m Alstom Metropolis TS. I keep finding the same dead link. And that number seems high to me. It's the same as the TRs which are significantly bigger. Full longitudinal seating accounts for some of that, but not all. Plus, the 76.20m x 2.94m Metropolis trains on the REM only have a capacity of 600 which would imply a capacity around 800 on the OL trains. If you do come across that 36k PPHPD figure again I'd like to see it.
That's fair, but let's assume that these trains will carry the more pessimistic REM specifications. That's still 32k PPHPD, which is still more than Line 1 today.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,600
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers if we assume all cars can hold the same number of passengers (realistically it doesn't, but for the sake of this comparison, the variation is fairly minimal). At 90s headways, or 40 tph
IIRC the PDBC called for shorter trains and fewer tph at opening with a provision for expansion later. It’s been known for a while, and there was quite a discussion on it in this thread.

That’s why your numbers are larger.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
2,600
F6736B5F-F323-41F4-B921-0D74A9D4D955.jpeg
 

Top