[Tristen]

Applying the same standard (2.5/sq. m) to the TTC Rockets, they have about 436 square metres of floor area (140x3.12m), and hold about 1,100 people at crush load.

Are we too comfortable than other countries, with 2.5/sq.m, everyone can actually have a "seat" on the train.

 

[innsertnamehere]

As I said, long term you are correct, but the Yonge Line lasted with 26k PPHPD for over 50 years before capacity enhancements became a necessity. Realistically, the Ontario Line won't need it anytime soon.

exactly. And the OL has the ability to go up to 30k pphd, which is actually above what the Yonge Line operates at today at about 28,000 pphd.

To suggest that the OL should be built at a cost 40-60% greater to support a marginal additional capacity that is unlikely to even be needed is absurd. I'm sorry. I don't understand how half this board seems to think that way.

Even if it *was* needed, the growth of ridership required to hit that number would have to be so great the line would run over capacity a few short years later anyway, and another solution would have to be implemented regardless. So Even IF the additional capacity would be needed, it would only stave off a relief line for the relief line by a few years at most. That 40-60% extra cost would be better spent building that relief line for the relief line in that case.

 

[Tristen]

Let’s not forget the stouffville line has 30000ppdph capacity unused.

You just need to lower the price and finish double tracks and electrification.

 

[EnviroTO]

If GO/RER/SmartTrack/FlavorOfTheDay ever charges a similar fare to the TTC then the concerns around OL sizing will rapidly fade away, especially if they provide sheltered connections between GO and TTC at Bloor-Dundas, Lansdowne, Main-Danforth, and Leslie-Sheppard. The OL's smaller size is fine when people can feel that there is a network that makes trips from Warden to Main-Danforth on Line 2 and Main-Danforth to Union on Line G possible. I'm not sure what stats are available for GO/Metrolinx but I would guess that almost nobody takes the service one stop today despite many people travelling between points where that one stop trip would have been advantageous. However, I doubt Metrolinx will ever make a fare adjustment to bring these into parity which is what will cause OL to be crowded.

 

[ARG1]

If GO/RER/SmartTrack/FlavorOfTheDay ever charges a similar fare to the TTC then the concerns around OL sizing will rapidly fade away, especially if they provide sheltered connections between GO and TTC at Bloor-Dundas, Lansdowne, Main-Danforth, and Leslie-Sheppard. The OL's smaller size is fine when people can feel that there is a network that makes trips from Warden to Main-Danforth on Line 2 and Main-Danforth to Union on Line G possible. I'm not sure what stats are available for GO/Metrolinx but I would guess that almost nobody takes the service one stop today despite many people travelling between points where that one stop trip would have been advantageous. However, I doubt Metrolinx will ever make a fare adjustment to bring these into parity which is what will cause OL to be crowded.

As it has been mentioned over and over again though, its not a question of "will they won't they", its a statement of "they have to, there is no choice in the matter". GO RER will fail without fare integration - this is a fact. It is one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in Canadian history, and in order to get the ridership and usage needed to justify the amount of money being poured into the project, some form of Fare Integration will have to occur. The entire design of the Ontario Line hinges on the idea that GO will have fare integration, this is why the initial designs for the Ontario Line called for a cross platform connection at East Harbour - without Fare Integration this wouldn't be possible. The same can be said about the design of Exhibition Station. If we want to go ahead and assume Fare Integration won't happen, we can go ahead and cancel the entirety of GO Expansion and Ontario Line, and live in this region like cave men where every municipality charges a different fare.

 

[syn]

Metrolinx pretty clearly states that the design is 100m platforms with 90 second frequencies, which results in 30,000 pphd at 750 people per train, which I think is pretty reasonable. And in order for the line to "overrun" that, it would have to be the third busiest subway line on the continent. Not even the Yonge Line has demand exceed 30,000 pphd today. We are talking about a 40-60% cost reduction at the cost of a marginal amount of capacity that would be highly unlikely to ever be needed anyway.

The OL isn't some low-capacity light metro, it's just as high capacity as most global subway networks. It's just that Toroto's existing tech allows for unusually high capacities. To claim that the OL is some inferior system is Toronto Exceptionalism at it's finest, and is a perfect example of missing the forest for the trees.

I believe the 80m number comes from them planning on running 80m trains initially due to lower demand. Just like how the Crosstown has been designed for 90m trains but they are running 60m trains on opening day.

The lower cost is based on 80m trains, which they're considering using for the next 30 years.

How do you think the cost was decreased?

"This analysis leads to the following finding: the
refined operating concept option uses smaller 80 m trains that carry lower capital and operating
and maintenance costs, which reduces the overall cost of the project (compared to the use of
100 m trains in the IBC operating concept option). Metrolinx may consider the use of 80 m trains
for the first 30-year operating period, and into the second 30-year operating period to reduce
overall financial impact of the project."

The capacity difference between the original plan and this one isn't marginal. It's significant. And we're looking at the best case scenario for the Ontario Line, not necessarily realistic numbers.

Toronto, especially downtown Toronto, is growing at a rapid rate. The Yonge Line, despite 'unusually high capacities' has been overcrowded for some time.

We need to ensure this line has the highest capacity possible. No one has said the OL is 'inferior', but it clearly doesn't have close to the capacity necessary.

This is something they need to address now.

 

[syn]

Very well said.

According to train size, the TTC Rocket crush load capacity is 1458/439.6 = ~3.316 people per m^2. Applying that to the OL trains gives a 1000 people capacity.

Assuming that 90 second headways is optimistic, and using 2 minute headways instead, we get 1000*30 = 30,000 pphd. I think that's enough.

Observed capacity in TRs is 1100. 80m trains by Metrolinx numbers will hold 600. I think that's a very unrealistic estimate.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

To suggest that the OL should be built at a cost 40-60% greater to support a marginal additional capacity that is unlikely to even be needed is absurd. I'm sorry. I don't understand how half this board seems to think that way.

Even if it *was* needed, the growth of ridership required to hit that number would have to be so great the line would run over capacity a few short years later anyway, and another solution would have to be implemented regardless. So Even IF the additional capacity would be needed, it would only stave off a relief line for the relief line by a few years at most. That 40-60% extra cost would be better spent building that relief line for the relief line in that case.

I agree wholly with this... however...

It really would have been nice to see what the true cost differential would have been to build the OL alignment to Sheppard standards retaining compatibility with the rest of the subway. I tend to think light metro IS the right choice, but it's abundantly obvious the decision was made on far more assumptions than actual comparison of the specifics by engineers. Having said that, while I suspect they are right, I also suspect that there is very little in the way of alignment changes that would actually be needed to accommodate four car Toronto standard trains.

 

[ARG1]

The lower cost is based on 80m trains, which they're considering using for the next 30 years.

How do you think the cost was decreased?

"This analysis leads to the following finding: the
refined operating concept option uses smaller 80 m trains that carry lower capital and operating
and maintenance costs, which reduces the overall cost of the project (compared to the use of
100 m trains in the IBC operating concept option). Metrolinx may consider the use of 80 m trains
for the first 30-year operating period, and into the second 30-year operating period to reduce
overall financial impact of the project."

The capacity difference between the original plan and this one isn't marginal. It's significant. And we're looking at the best case scenario for the Ontario Line, not necessarily realistic numbers.

Toronto, especially downtown Toronto, is growing at a rapid rate. The Yonge Line, despite 'unusually high capacities' has been overcrowded for some time.

We need to ensure this line has the highest capacity possible. No one has said the OL is 'inferior', but it clearly doesn't have close to the capacity necessary.

This is something they need to address now.

The 80m plan factors in 100m platforms built from the beginning, or at least 80m platforms with knockout panels, so there is room to expand to 100 in that scenerio.

 

[EnviroTO]

As it has been mentioned over and over again though, its not a question of "will they won't they", its a statement of "they have to, there is no choice in the matter".

Yet it hasn't happened. The subway is extended into York and a logical person would say you can't do this without fare integration, yet they have. They have 15 minute service on Lakeshore, but Exhibition to Union is far more expensive on GO than the 509. Presto is everywhere but rather than force integration every transit operator has implemented Presto completely differently with passes, discounts, different rates, etc. You can say there is no choice... but unfortunately until the province forces the issue it will not happen because a logical fare system change will have winners and losers as compared to the current system and the politicians are going to serve the people who are loudest and those people will be the people who pay slightly more.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The lower cost is based on 80m trains, which they're considering using for the next 30 years.

How do you think the cost was decreased?

"This analysis leads to the following finding: the
refined operating concept option uses smaller 80 m trains that carry lower capital and operating
and maintenance costs, which reduces the overall cost of the project (compared to the use of
100 m trains in the IBC operating concept option). Metrolinx may consider the use of 80 m trains
for the first 30-year operating period, and into the second 30-year operating period to reduce
overall financial impact of the project."

The capacity difference between the original plan and this one isn't marginal. It's significant. And we're looking at the best case scenario for the Ontario Line, not necessarily realistic numbers.

Toronto, especially downtown Toronto, is growing at a rapid rate. The Yonge Line, despite 'unusually high capacities' has been overcrowded for some time.

We need to ensure this line has the highest capacity possible. No one has said the OL is 'inferior', but it clearly doesn't have close to the capacity necessary.

This is something they need to address now.

1. The part you quoted is as I said - Metrolinx plans to run 80m trains at first as that's the only capacity needed, but the system is still designed to accommodate 100m trains.. Which is fine for future proofing. Note the reference to the smaller trains being run on the initial 30 year period, with the potential to increase the size in the second 30 year operating period. Also note that the refined capital cost reduction is only about $150 million ($8.41-9.05 billion, dropped to $8.26-8.91 billion), which I imagine mostly comes from a smaller rolling stock order. If capacity does run over in 30 years it won't be a challenge to order a few more train cars for a couple hundred million and extend the trains.

2. How do we know that the OL will need that additional capacity in the first place? Even with 80 metre trains, ridership projections have peak loads at 50-60% of capacity on opening day. The 80 metre trains can also accommodate the demand currently experienced on the Bloor-Danforth line, as well as the demand on basically every subway line on the continent other than the Yonge Line and the Lexington Avenue line in NYC. Fast growth or not, the amount of demand required to run the line over capacity is extremely high in a global context.

Even if the line is extended up to Steeles, I just struggle to see how the line will attract 30,000+pphd in the infrastructure lifecycle period. And as I said, if it did manage to achieve that, it would be better to build a second relief line at that point than it would be to lay out the initial capital outlay today to protect for that situation 50 years from now.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yet it hasn't happened. The subway is extended into York and a logical person would say you can't do this without fare integration, yet they have. They have 15 minute service on Lakeshore, but Exhibition to Union is far more expensive on GO than the 509. Presto is everywhere but rather than force integration every transit operator has implemented Presto completely differently with passes, discounts, different rates, etc. You can say there is no choice... but unfortunately until the province forces the issue it will not happen because a logical fare system change will have winners and losers as compared to the current system and the politicians are going to serve the people who are loudest and those people will be the people who pay slightly more.

not really. It's a 0.50 cent fare difference ($3.70 vs. $3.20)

 

[W. K. Lis]

When the original Yonge Subway (today's Line 1) opened in 1954, they thought they would be used two of the red Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company subway car trains in the non-peak hours. The shortest they went was four-car trains, but even that was too short. They settled on six-car trains during the quiet times, like Sunday (when most stores were closed up). That was close to the four-car Montreal Locomotive Works or current subway cars in length.

From link.

 

[syn]

1. The part you quoted is as I said - Metrolinx plans to run 80m trains at first as that's the only capacity needed, but the system is still designed to accommodate 100m trains.. Which is fine for future proofing. Note the reference to the smaller trains being run on the initial 30 year period, with the potential to increase the size in the second 30 year operating period. Also note that the refined capital cost reduction is only about $150 million ($8.41-9.05 billion, dropped to $8.26-8.91 billion), which I imagine mostly comes from a smaller rolling stock order. If capacity does run over in 30 years it won't be a challenge to order a few more train cars for a couple hundred million and extend the trains.

2. How do we know that the OL will need that additional capacity in the first place? Even with 80 metre trains, ridership projections have peak loads at 50-60% of capacity on opening day. The 80 metre trains can also accommodate the demand currently experienced on the Bloor-Danforth line, as well as the demand on basically every subway line on the continent other than the Yonge Line and the Lexington Avenue line in NYC. Fast growth or not, the amount of demand required to run the line over capacity is extremely high in a global context.

Even if the line is extended up to Steeles, I just struggle to see how the line will attract 30,000+pphd in the infrastructure lifecycle period. And as I said, if it did manage to achieve that, it would be better to build a second relief line at that point than it would be to lay out the initial capital outlay today to protect for that situation 50 years from now.

Because Metrolinx cited shorter/smaller trains as being a 'benefit'. Why? Because it reduces crowding by making the OL a less desirable option for Line 1 riders.

"Both options can realize similar strategic and economic benefits across most indicators and have the same economic BCR (1.05), however, the refined operating concept has reduced crowding benefits (for travellers on the Ontario Line as well as those who use other rapid transit lines) as it uses smaller trains and attracts fewer trips off of Line 1 – these impacts are most pronounced later in the project lifecycle beyond 2060;"

I'm not sure Metrolinx got the memo, but the entire point of this project was pull riders off Line 1.

If the shorter trains mean less riders off Line 1 and far lower capacity overall then we already have a major problem.

I'm glad the original subway designers implemented long platforms that could handle 130m+ trains. Who knows where we'd be now if they didn't.

It's too bad Metrolinx lacks this kind of wisdom and foresight.

 

[syn]

When the original Yonge Subway (today's Line 1) opened in 1954, they thought they would be used two of the red Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company subway car trains in the non-peak hours. The shortest they went was four-car trains, but even that was too short. They settled on six-car trains during the quiet times, like Sunday (when most stores were closed up). That was close to the four-car Montreal Locomotive Works or current subway cars in length.

From link.

The speed at which they had to increase the number of cars being used should an important lesson for Ontario Line designers.