[W. K. Lis]

Montréal Metro trains are narrower than Toronto's Subway trains (Montréal's trains are same width as Toronto's streetcars). Yet Montreal has a higher average DAILY ridership on its rapid transit network than Toronto's. From link.

 

[Divas S.]

I'm pretty sure New York uses even smaller trains and has more ridership-

what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

 

[ARG1]

Investing in the Ontario Line is akin to buying a two-seater Mazda Miata over an equally priced four-seat Honda Civic when you know you got twin girls on the way. Sure, having a car is better than nothing, but it's still a dumbass, short-sighted decision that you'll inevitability regret.

Very strange comparison. A more apt comparison would be an 8 seater car vs a 6-7 seater car. Yes you can have a lot more with 8 seats but by the time you need it, you probably need a new line anyway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm pretty sure New York uses even smaller trains and has more ridership-

what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

New York has worse signal problems than Toronto, Montréal, or even Ottawa. Hopefully, the signals on the Ontario Line will work as advertised. Unless they are the lowest bidder.

From link, dated January, 2020.

...According to the report, one or more signals malfunctioned in 78 percent of all morning rush hours last year.

In 2018, the report says it was even worse, with at least one signal problem occurring 92 percent of the time.

"Signal problems are among the most persistent issues on the subway and they cause an especial amount of anxiety and frustration,” said Danny Pearlstein of Riders Alliance. “Our subway signals rely on technology from the 1930s on vast parts of the subway system."...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

30-34K ppdph is not low capacity, at some point too if the issue is with Yonge we will need to bite the bullet and expand Yonge, a lot can be done to improve capacity on that line, it’s laughable we don’t even have trains that use the full platform yet and people talk about the Yonge Line like it is up against a brick wall with no room to grow capacity.

Ok so you think than an extension to Sheppard will leave to the line being overcapacity, I really still don’t think that’s the case. A lot of these riders are not going to be new they are going to be diverted, so if you do soak up a ton of riders well then Yonge can like also take more especially if we actually fully build it out. We still don’t even use exclusively longitudinal seating because apparently people don’t like it and yet we are talking about the Yonge Line like it has no place to go capacity wise.



Because there’s a lot of talk including in here still (you can see in some of the other posts) that seems to suggest you can hit 30,000+ ppdph without TR sized trains, which simply isn’t the case.

Lets just short circuit this nitpick discussion over the particular capacities of the various lines.

What logical reason is there to oppose adding additional capacity to the Ontario Line? Worst case scenario, you've "wasted" a billion dollars ensuring smoother operations of the Ontario Line for decades to come (a line that is 70% will run well; a line that's 90% full will have tons of operational issues). Meanwhile, worst case scenario with an under built Ontario Line is that in the not too distant future, we'll need to spend tens of billions more on further measures to relieve Yonge Line crowding.

The risk factors far favour just building the thing with proper capacity from Day 1.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If we build the line the way the city was planning it will likely cost something close to twice as much.

You think the Relief Line from Downtown to Sheppard would've cost $22 Billion? Why?

1-2B should be enough to add 5K ppdph to the Yonge Line

How... the capacity doesn't come from nowhere just because you throw some arbitrary amount of money at it.

The Yonge Line has several compounding factors that are limiting its capacity potential at this point. This problem goes beyond the management of train movements, to include overcrowding at station platforms, and poor passenger circulation at individual stations, increasing train dwell times. This is quite evident if you've ever seen a downtown station at rush hour pre-COVID.

This isn't going to be solved with one or two billion dollars. The implementation of platform screen doors on the busiest stations alone would likely cost more than that. And even then, that doesn't solve the problem of poor passenger circulation increasing dwell times (if passengers can't get on/off a train due to train or platform crowding, they tend to hold the doors open).

1-2B should be enough... to start building another central rapid transit line.

There is absolutely no way that building another central rapid transit line would cost one or two billion dollars.

I don’t really agree that being at 90% forces a line to not run well, it’s really a matter of improving our operations

It absolutely does. With a packed train or platform, it's clearly evident that it'll take longer for passengers to get on/off the vehicle. That means the trains wait longer at the stations, which means the number of trains coming thru the station per hour is decreased. You can't just wish these problems away.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Of course the capacity doesn’t come from nowhere, but with that much money you could lengthen trains, go and expand some key stations, improve circulation etc? Like of course I’ve seen a downtown station pre Covid, I was in Toronto the past 5 years lol!

This much money would go a long way to for example widening platforms at stations like College and Dundas and building proper second entrances for them. There’s also now way that PSDs at a few stations should or would cost that much.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think a billion or two dollars would go as far as you think it would.

The TTC and the City are already exploring the installation of platform screen doors on the Yonge Line. However, they've already said that, at a bare minimum, it'll cost well in excess of a billion dollars.

I have no clue how much it would cost to expand the platforms at the stations where there are overcrowded platforms, but it would not be cheap. The expansion of the Yonge Station (Line 2) platform alone is slated to cost over a billion dollars.

We'd also need to look at redesigning the crossover/turnback tracks at our terminal stations, to allow greater throughput. When the Line 1 trains are switching from northbound/southbound tracks, they occupy both tracks, which limits the throughput, headway and capacity of the line. Any other measure to decrease headways is pointless without redesigning these crossover tracks. I don't even know if it is possible to redesign these tracks to allow for decreased headways, and even if it is, that is another very expensive project to be undertaken.

We could end up spending two, three... five billion dollars trying to squeeze more capacity out of the Yonge Line, and even then, there is no guarantee that the infrastructure and passengers will behave in such a way, that it allows the theoretical capacity to be realized.

In any circumstance in which the Ontario Line doesn't have the capacity to effectively relieve the Yonge Line, it will have been cheaper to just build the Ontario Line properly, rather than trying to squeeze more capacity out of the Yonge Line.

 

[rbt]

The TTC and the City are already exploring the installation of platform screen doors on the Yonge Line. However, they've already said that, at a bare minimum, it'll cost well in excess of a billion dollars.

It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.

The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.

 

[JSF-1]

It's actually considerably more expensive than that; the Fire Safety upgrades (more airflow; I believe Finch is the only finished station) are a pre-requisite and had a separate $1B+ lineitem.

The "doors" were relatively cheap. Strengthening platform edges and removal of asbestos were a big chunk of that price.

I believe a lot of the air flow work be completely avoided by using half-height doors. The subway wasn't designed for full height doors and the stations would look terrible and claustrophobic with full height doors. Most cities who do retrofit old "low ceiling" stations like what we have use half heights, while full height doors are left for lines that are designed with them in mind like the OL should be. Outside of the stations on the spadina and vaughan part of the line 1, installing full height doors is more effort then it is worth when a cheaper and more practical solution exists. It sounds like the powers that be have decided to jump at the most expensive option while conveniently ignoring the cheaper solutions; possibly as a way to discredit the idea? This isn't exactly something that doesn't happen here when it comes to transit planning.

 

[rbt]

I believe a lot of the air flow work be completely avoided by using half-height doors.

TTC (and Toronto fire) disagrees. Should be noted, the existing ventilation is considered insufficient even without the platform doors.

Walking through the tunnel away from a disabled train (because of a fire on that train) puts the platform floor very close to nose height. The open station doorways in older parts of the system are the primary air-source that gets moved into the tunnel to refresh the air. Platform doors, even half-height, would act as an obstruction to fresh air reaching the heads of evacuating passengers.

The change at Finch (the upgraded station), in addition to stronger ventilation fans, adds inbound airflow vents directly to the tunnel instead of relying on station entrances.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Doesn’t matter if the trains are smaller if they run more of them. After all Vancouver’s 2 carriage RT carries more people a day than Lakeshore East GO train

 

[kamira51]

I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?

 

[W. K. Lis]

I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?

Depends upon the definition of "better"?

The Toronto Relief Line would have used similar trains as Line 2 & 1. It would have run from Osgoode Station on Line 1 to Pape Station on Line 2. The Relief Line could have been extended later to the north (to Eglinton or Sheppard) and/or to the west (to Exhibition Place and beyond). While the existing Greenwood Yard be used for train storage, a new train yard would be needed for Line 2 in the west end past Kipling Station.

The Ontario Line would use ??? And would be already extended to Eglinton and Exhibition Place. It would need a new train storage yard. Oh yeah, it would have been designed on a Doug Ford paper napkin, so it would be "better" according to Ford Nation.

 

[ARG1]

I got a question, was Toronto's RL better than the Ontario Line?

No not really. There were some aspects of the RL that were "better" with a question mark, but overall, at least conceptually, the Ontario Line is smarter. The Routing gives access to a lot more places of interest such as Exhibition and Chinatown, gracing western Old Toronto with Rapid Transit that its sorely needing, plus having a direct connection to the Distillery District is a nice addition. Having a cross-platform connection to the Stouffville and LSE GO lines at East Harbour is also significantly greater and smarter than the 4 story Escalator Ride we would've had with the DRL. There is no reason to have our metros run underground unless its absolutely needed. Finally by running fully automated trains, we are able to run far more flexible service at a far cheaper cost. The only real downside is that the trains will be narrower than the TRs, but considering the benefits of the current allignment, allowing relief of Union Station itself through the connections at East Harbour and Exhibition, I think its worth it.

 

[daniel_kryz]

Depends upon the definition of "better"?

The Toronto Relief Line would have used similar trains as Line 2 & 1. It would have run from Osgoode Station on Line 1 to Pape Station on Line 2. The Relief Line could have been extended later to the north (to Eglinton or Sheppard) and/or to the west (to Exhibition Place and beyond). While the existing Greenwood Yard be used for train storage, a new train yard would be needed for Line 2 in the west end past Kipling Station.

The Ontario Line would use ??? And would be already extended to Eglinton and Exhibition Place. It would need a new train storage yard. Oh yeah, it would have been designed on a Doug Ford paper napkin, so it would be "better" according to Ford Nation.

Actually, city planners examined the route (in a report) and determined it is much better than the relief line in almost every aspect. The RL's north extension would've probably open in the 2040s, it wasn't planned to connect to the East Harbour station, and wouldn't serve as many riders & developments, so I'm not sure why people are complaining.