[syn]

People are emotional beings. Simple as that. They grew up in Toronto with the subway meaning a specific thing, and wanted to see that thing expanded to new lines around the city. That is their vision in their head in the future. And when you offer up a different future, even one that is better, people cling to their own perceptions of what they imagined the future to be like.

You see this all the time in clinical psychology, people will literally be offered some amazing opportunity in life, and turn it down to follow the life path they decided for themselves when they were an ignorant 18 year old, because that opportunity wasn't what they wanted, even when the opportunity is objectively better.

People will then use all kinds of logic to try and convince themselves that the emotional thing they desire is better, when they have already reached a conclusion and are cherry picking evidence to support it.

That would explain all the excuses for the OL's lack of capacity.

I don't think anyone has an attachment to TR trains for this project, it's simply that the previous plan was far better at providing capacity than this one. And it was also further ahead, a process they could've expedited.

 

[syn]

Is it though? The original Yonge Line also travelled through lower density, less developed areas historically that has subsequently intensified (in fact, one can argue it is the one factor that drove intensification patterns in the N-S axis - even now). Shortcomings of TR is one thing, it does not negate the utility of excess capacity for a line with an arbitrary termination at Eglinton with modelling on that basis, when we know plausible future alignments will basically hit spots of intensification potential.

You don't have to size everything to increased capacity - but you *should* do it where it will be difficult if not impossible to do in the future (key underground stations); and you need to have a plan for that eventuality for where you didn't build to excess (e.g. elevated station extensions).

AoD

Agreed.

We should be taking what is clearly a rare opportunity to ensure this line is future-proofed as much as possible.

 

[kamira51]

People are emotional beings. Simple as that. They grew up in Toronto with the subway meaning a specific thing, and wanted to see that thing expanded to new lines around the city. That is their vision in their head in the future. And when you offer up a different future, even one that is better, people cling to their own perceptions of what they imagined the future to be like.

You see this all the time in clinical psychology, people will literally be offered some amazing opportunity in life, and turn it down to follow the life path they decided for themselves when they were an ignorant 18 year old, because that opportunity wasn't what they wanted, even when the opportunity is objectively better.

People will then use all kinds of logic to try and convince themselves that the emotional thing they desire is better, when they have already reached a conclusion and are cherry picking evidence to support it.

You just described this thread and many of its posters.

 

[44 North]

The TR's are a bad train and I am not sure what the obsession with using them is.

Further I am not sure what the obsession with having *higher* capacity than even Yonge is, it makes no sense. The OL will be a lower ridership line for so many reasons which is part of why it does not need as much capacity as Yonge in the first place. It will be travelling through lower density less developed areas, it will be connecting less major destinations, it will have less reverse commute traffic, etc. it does not need Yonge Capacity and it is a great opportunity to use better trains with higher performance (ability to climb steeped grades and take tighter corners and hit a higher trop speed), reduce operating costs with automation, and improve reliability with overhead power, most of these things cannot be done with the TR's.

People are emotional beings. Simple as that. They grew up in Toronto with the subway meaning a specific thing, and wanted to see that thing expanded to new lines around the city. That is their vision in their head in the future. And when you offer up a different future, even one that is better, people cling to their own perceptions of what they imagined the future to be like.

You see this all the time in clinical psychology, people will literally be offered some amazing opportunity in life, and turn it down to follow the life path they decided for themselves when they were an ignorant 18 year old, because that opportunity wasn't what they wanted, even when the opportunity is objectively better.

People will then use all kinds of logic to try and convince themselves that the emotional thing they desire is better, when they have already reached a conclusion and are cherry picking evidence to support it.

This is pretty cringe. As someone who spent years arguing in favour of transitioning to nimbler narrow-bodied trains in various threads, I can't say I've seen any of you argue in favour of such outside of this thread. SSE, YNSE, Sheppard. All will be hulking TRs, 6-cars long, hugely excess capacity, entirely underground to boot. No mention of the ills of the TR elsewhere?

 

[ARG1]

This is pretty cringe. As someone who spent years arguing in favour of transitioning to nimbler narrow-bodied trains in various threads, I can't say I've seen any of you argue in favour of such outside of this thread. SSE, YNSE, Sheppard. All will be hulking TRs, 6-cars long, hugely excess capacity, entirely underground to boot. No mention of the ills of the TR elsewhere?

Apples to Oranges. Making a new line from scratch is a completely different beast from an extension. If you want nimbler narrow bodied trains on YNSE, that's fine, as long as you're willing to accept those on the rest of Line 1, otherwise this is a stupid question. Same thing applies to SSE. As for Sheppard, ye sure replace them with nimbler trains. Of course you'd have to build a new MSF, find space for that MSF, or you could build a diamond junction for the Ontario Line so if you can that to work go ahead.

 

[afransen]

This is pretty cringe. As someone who spent years arguing in favour of transitioning to nimbler narrow-bodied trains in various threads, I can't say I've seen any of you argue in favour of such outside of this thread. SSE, YNSE, Sheppard. All will be hulking TRs, 6-cars long, hugely excess capacity, entirely underground to boot. No mention of the ills of the TR elsewhere?

It has been heavily discussed as an option for Sheppard to make it something more than a stubway (convert existing subway and extend primarily elevated). It doesn't really make sense to replace all the rolling stock for Line 1 or Line 2 for relatively short extensions.

 

[Rainforest]

As for Sheppard, ye sure replace them with nimbler trains. Of course you'd have to build a new MSF, find space for that MSF, or you could build a diamond junction for the Ontario Line so if you can that to work go ahead.

Finding space for a new MSF near the Sheppard route shouldn't be a big problem. If the line is extended west, then the empty land still present south of the Sheppard West station and near the Wilson yard can be used for the new MSF.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It has been heavily discussed as an option for Sheppard to make it something more than a stubway (convert existing subway and extend primarily elevated). It doesn't really make sense to replace all the rolling stock for Line 1 or Line 2 for relatively short extensions.

TTC subway rolling stock usually have a lifespan of 30+ years.

The TR fleet on Line 1 were built 2009-2015. The T-1 fleet on Line 2 were built 1995-2001. So expect to see arrivals of new trains after 2031, ten more years from today. Then the current TR train fleet would move over to Line 2, with the new trains being used for Line 1. I would expect the new trains would include the needed cars for any extensions.

 

[Coolstar]

TTC subway rolling stock usually have a lifespan of 30+ years.

The TR fleet on Line 1 were built 2009-2015. The T-1 fleet on Line 2 were built 1995-2001. So expect to see arrivals of new trains after 2031, ten more years from today. Then the current TR train fleet would move over to Line 2, with the new trains being used for Line 1. I would expect the new trains would include the needed cars for any extensions.

Has it not been decided that the new trainsets of would go to Line 2 to replace the T1s with some of the new trainsets also going to Line 1 to increase capacity?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Has it not been decided that the new trainsets of would go to Line 2 to replace the T1s with some of the new trainsets also going to Line 1 to increase capacity?

That's the normal procedure after the opening of Line 2 in 1966 & 1968. New train cars would appear on Line 1 first, with the older trains shifting over to Line 2. The shorter Gloucester trains stayed on Line 1 (except for the 1966 six-month experiment in which trains alternate between going straight across and turning south at the "Y" where the lines intersect).

 

[KhalilHeron]

That's the normal procedure after the opening of Line 2 in 1966 & 1968. New train cars would appear on Line 1 first, with the older trains shifting over to Line 2. The shorter Gloucester trains stayed on Line 1 (except for the 1966 six-month experiment in which trains alternate between going straight across and turning south at the "Y" where the lines intersect).

That's the normal procedure but the TTC has said (and its on their website) that the new rolling stock which are "entering the earliest stages of design" are meant to replace the T-1's and have some of them go onto line 1 to increase capacity, but not replace thee TR's (yet at least). They say they want to rollout the new trains 2026-2030. As far as I'm aware the TR's don't fit in greenwood yard so that may have been a factor in them deciding to switch things up this time round.

 

[44 North]

It has been heavily discussed as an option for Sheppard to make it something more than a stubway (convert existing subway and extend primarily elevated). It doesn't really make sense to replace all the rolling stock for Line 1 or Line 2 for relatively short extensions.

By 'transition to' I meant a standalone line vs extension. All the points continually made by a group of posters (TR bad, tunneling bad, 6-car too big, too excess capacity, high cost, extreme depth, low density, etc)...they all hold true for suburban extensions. Doubly so in many instances. And there's truth to their points. Not like we're talking a few mil here - these extensions are some of the world's most expensive transit projects, with further extensions to be had in the future. Yet outside the RL/OL thread I haven't seen them mention any of their points, which is pretty backwards.

 

[syn]

By 'transition to' I meant a standalone line vs extension. All the points continually made by a group of posters (TR bad, tunneling bad, 6-car too big, too excess capacity, high cost, extreme depth, low density, etc)...they all hold true for suburban extensions. Doubly so in many instances. And there's truth to their points. Not like we're talking a few mil here - these extensions are some of the world's most expensive transit projects, with further extensions to be had in the future. Yet outside the RL/OL thread I haven't seen them mention any of their points, which is pretty backwards.

Not to mention there was a fully funded, above ground, grade separated transit project that would have been up and running last year (the Scarborough LRT)...which was apparently bad for many of the reasons the OL is great.

I can't remember how many instances there were of people suggesting the SSE made sense because it future-proofed the project.

At the very least the government could've made a serious effort to put these extensions above ground.

It's hard to take people who support the SSE and EWLRT seriously when they criticize the idea of spending more to use larger vehicles or increasing the capacity on the OL. If that's a problem, then they should be absolutely livid about how the SSE, EWLRT, etc. are being implemented. Instead it's mostly met with shoulder shrugs.

 

[ARG1]

Not to mention there was a fully funded, above ground, grade separated transit project that would have been up and running last year (the Scarborough LRT)...which was apparently bad for many of the reasons the OL is great.

I can't remember how many instances there were of people suggesting the SSE made sense because it future-proofed the project.

At the very least the government could've made a serious effort to put these extensions above ground.

It's hard to take people who support the SSE and EWLRT seriously when they criticize the idea of spending more to use larger vehicles or increasing the capacity on the OL. If that's a problem, then they should be absolutely livid about how the SSE, EWLRT, etc. are being implemented. Instead it's mostly met with shoulder shrugs.

By 'transition to' I meant a standalone line vs extension. All the points continually made by a group of posters (TR bad, tunneling bad, 6-car too big, too excess capacity, high cost, extreme depth, low density, etc)...they all hold true for suburban extensions. Doubly so in many instances. And there's truth to their points. Not like we're talking a few mil here - these extensions are some of the world's most expensive transit projects, with further extensions to be had in the future. Yet outside the RL/OL thread I haven't seen them mention any of their points, which is pretty backwards.

Except none of these extensions would be cheaper. I want you to think about this logically. Let's say we choose to replace the Yonge Line with a Light Metro extension. Problem #1 You now have to build an MSF for the line. Problem #2, you know have to build a new platform at Finch Station which really wouldn't be easy (unless you want to make a Cross Platform Transfer at Finch, but that would seriously reduce the capacity of Line 1). With just these 2 additions, you are now looking at a project that would be the same cost as the current subway extension, but let's continue. Forcing people to take a linear transfer at Finch would be absolutely ludicrous. If you're on the Steeles bus, that means instead of going straight to finch, you have to transfer at steeles, then take this light metro to Finch, then everyone transfers to Line 1, which is absolutely silly, and also dangerous. When you have a linear transfer, you are basically forcing all of the people riding on one line to transfer to the other line all at one, leaving people to rush to get from platform to platform. One of the biggest issues with the Scarborough LRT plan is that linear transfer. In 10 years, the Scarborough Line is projected to carry over 100 000 passengers per day, and imagine all of that traffic just stampeding down 3 floors at Kennedy as all of them rush to get on a train to Line 2. This is why linear transfers create so many problems.

Now one can make the argument that Line 1 should be extended to Steeles, but that's even worse since now you have to get 2 different TBMs, and at this point you get the literal opposite of economy of scale. Adding a light metro as a cheap way of extending a line has literally never worked. I can only think of a few places it has been done, and none of them have been successful. I'm looking at cities like Moscow, San Francisco, and hell we literally have the SRT here in Toronto, a line that was so bad that even though it terminated right next to the highway, Kennedy is still one of the biggest parking lot stations on the system simply because people don't want to deal with it, and just drive from the 401 to Kennedy. The Scarborough LRT wouldn't have fixed this. It would be wasting money on a line that is literally worse than a refurbished SRT.

The Ontario Line is a completely different story. Its a brand new line on a brand new corridor, that serves its own market of riders. Its not a tumour that sticks out at the end of another line, its a completely different service area. Using different rolling stocks is totally fine here. Same story would've been for a light Metro on Eglinton or Sheppard, had they been built with this technology at the start.

 

[smallspy]

Has it not been decided that the new trainsets of would go to Line 2 to replace the T1s with some of the new trainsets also going to Line 1 to increase capacity?

According to internal documents, the bulk of the trainsets currently being planned to be ordered will be for service on the Bloor-Danforth Line and its extension to Scarborough Town Centre and beyond.

A smaller portion of the order will be used to increase the total fleet size available for service of the YUS, and to service the extension of the line up to Highway 7.

Dan