[afransen]

FWIW, this is the reality in private industry as well. I'm sure any engineer in any field can point to decisions that were made - at least partially - because of internal politics.

Can confirm. Maybe just a bit less willfully stupid.

 

[superelevation]

That's a false choice. No reason they couldn't have proceeded with the DRL North, as it's been mentioned numerous times before.

And I'd argue by your standards the OL is not a "full" line - it doesn't go to Don Mills and has drastically lower capacity.

You keep arguing like the choice is between a Relief Line to Don Mills but the OL will only go to SC? It is 100% the case that OL sets us up to get to Don Mills much faster. Again, you argue the capacity is drastically lower when the difference is <20% . . .

Why would building the OL with sufficient capacity necessitate building "half a line"?

Nevermind that the OL itself arguably isn't even a "complete" line. The thing must be extended before it can provide any relief to the Yonge Line (which should be the #1 goal here).

But that's tangential. Adding capacity to the OL wouldn't chop the line in half.

You keep arguing that it needs "sufficient" capacity without just saying what that sufficient capacity is, is the train length really the only issue you have with this project?

The Don Mills LRT would have continued up north on Pape, as part of Transit City. Could have continued up Don Mills to York Region. Then the Ford Nation cult came to rule the city.

The Relief Line extension was for the second phase. Eglinton for second phase, and maybe Sheppard the third phase (over time).

Now the Ford Nation rules the province. With the Ontario Line, the extension to Sheppard would be now second phase.

See, we go from "automated 100m metro trains will be saturated instantly" to, "we should have just run trams down the street!"

I’m just trying to understand why people are actively against adding capacity to the OL. It less expensive over the long run. It only makes the OL more effective. What’s the issue? What benefit do we derive from lowering the capacity of the OL?

Adding capacity beyond what is there increases project cost and likely a fair bit, why not save the money now and build more lines; covering more people and providing higher overall network capacity. There is no need to have a line be equal to capacity to Line 1 to achieve significant relief, the OL corridor while important does not have the same level of density or regional importance as Yonge and will not need the same capacity as Yonge (possibly ever).

It will be necessary whenever we're ready to extend the OL to Sheppard, which realistically should be today. MX themselves has acknowledged that the Yonge Line will not see major relief until the subway on Don Mills Road is extended towards Sheppard. We need to be having these discussions right now, unless we've decided we're done with the idea of Yonge Line relief.

I get that you seem to support the idea of a OL as long as the trains are longer, but given extensions North are clearly in the cards I don't think they'd be building a line that couldn't handle the riders for the foreseeable future.

We do know how many passengers per m2 Mx assumed they could squeeze into a train; a number they used in calculating O/L capacity; that is not in dispute.

We also know the number is substantially higher than a crush-loaded Toronto Rocket; in other words, impossible to achieve.

It isn't impossible, the Rockets use their space quite inefficiently

Well I hope not, but given the past here, I have to be skeptical. It's interesting that we are tearing down the SRT and we will end up with SRT like veichles for this line.


There is no proof they are going to use panto and furthermore why would you believe what MX says about anything? They get their orders from MTO and the Premier's office.

Proof was provided and somehow you still don't believe it, is there any point?

Factually incorrect. Translink (not the NDP) is planning Vancouver's future transit network. They are considering two options... Network A (more skytrain) and Network B (more LRT).

BRT not LRT

 

[superelevation]

Yes, the Relief Line North was supposed to go up to Don Mills.

You are talking about false comparisons but for whatever reason you keep suggesting only the RL would go to Don Mills? The OL will likely get to Don Mills before the old plan reached Science Center.

Combine all of these factors together, and how long would the stations/trains need to be to achieve the capacity they've outlined in real world conditions? How about capacity comparable to traditional subway with TRs?

This is where it seems far more sensible to have continued with an expanded DRL/DRL North plan, perhaps with bigger station sand trains.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting it has to be all underground either - just sensibly built to achieve the important goal of maximizing capacity.

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.

 

[Northern Light]

It isn't impossible, the Rockets use their space quite inefficiently

That sounds like an endorsement of removing all transverse seats and going 100% cattle car.

Aside from the fact I would dislike this on a personal level; I would argue that would be a violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Many people feel physically ill when not facing forward (the direction of travel in a vehicle ) and/or are subject to side to side swaying.

I would support a legal challenge if transverse seating were not offered.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You keep arguing like the choice is between a Relief Line to Don Mills but the OL will only go to SC? It is 100% the case that OL sets us up to get to Don Mills much faster. Again, you argue the capacity is drastically lower when the difference is <20% . . .

You keep arguing that it needs "sufficient" capacity without just saying what that sufficient capacity is, is the train length really the only issue you have with this project?

See, we go from "automated 100m metro trains will be saturated instantly" to, "we should have just run trams down the street!"

Adding capacity beyond what is there increases project cost and likely a fair bit, why not save the money now and build more lines; covering more people and providing higher overall network capacity. There is no need to have a line be equal to capacity to Line 1 to achieve significant relief, the OL corridor while important does not have the same level of density or regional importance as Yonge and will not need the same capacity as Yonge (possibly ever).

I get that you seem to support the idea of a OL as long as the trains are longer, but given extensions North are clearly in the cards I don't think they'd be building a line that couldn't handle the riders for the foreseeable future.


It isn't impossible, the Rockets use their space quite inefficiently


Proof was provided and somehow you still don't believe it, is there any point?

BRT not LRT

I said let's see what would happen.

I mean let's see if they actually get something with Panto graphs, but the closes description to what MX would be looking for is the Canada line in BC.

 

[ARG1]

I said let's see what would happen.

I mean let's see if they actually get something with Panto graphs, but the closes description to what MX would be looking for is the Canada line in BC.

Pretty sure Metrolinx confirmed it was going to be Overhead 1500DC

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Pretty sure Metrolinx confirmed it was going to be Overhead 1500DC

So like this then?

https://flic.kr/p/K7dQNU

Wonder how this would be sold to Riverdale...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You are talking about false comparisons but for whatever reason you keep suggesting only the RL would go to Don Mills? The OL will likely get to Don Mills before the old plan reached Science Center.


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.

The obsession with TR is that we can't keep introducing different vehicles and having to hire 5 different specialists for everything. The long-term costs are the issue no one is talking about.

 

[KhalilHeron]

The obsession with TR is that we can't keep introducing different vehicles and having to hire 5 different specialists for everything. The long-term costs are the issue no one is talking about.

There are plenty of very successful metro systems around the world that use lots of different rolling stock. This isn't really a problem in most cases.

 

[nfitz]

The obsession with TR is that we can't keep introducing different vehicles and having to hire 5 different specialists for everything. The long-term costs are the issue no one is talking about.

You don't have to make Ontario Line handle the TR.

You just need to have the vehicles for the Ontario line be able to run on the existing subway. Much of the curve problems can be dealt with by going back to the original car length which would have had a 9-car train, like Montreal. Easy enough to specify steeper grades in the design of the vehicle.

 

[ARG1]

So like this then?

https://flic.kr/p/K7dQNU

Wonder how this would be sold to Riverdale...

The line will be running there alongside GO RER, which will most likely be powered by 25kV AC electrification. In other words it will look like a smaller scale version of the GO trains running right next to it. Wires will be hanging above rails no matter what,. so what Riverdale thinks is of no concern to anyone.

 

[syn]

You are talking about false comparisons but for whatever reason you keep suggesting only the RL would go to Don Mills? The OL will likely get to Don Mills before the old plan reached Science Center.

You keep arguing like the choice is between a Relief Line to Don Mills but the OL will only go to SC? It is 100% the case that OL sets us up to get to Don Mills much faster. Again, you argue the capacity is drastically lower when the difference is <20% . . .

That is not what I suggested.

I simply wrote that the DRL North was planned to go to Don Mills.

Which could be done faster is entirely up to the government - kind of like cancelling the previous plan and starting all over again.

And for the record, the capacity difference of about 20% is not only drastic, it's based on very unrealistic Ontario Line estimates provided by the government. It's likely even greater.

Further I am not sure what the obsession with having *higher* capacity than even Yonge is, it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. The primary goal is to remove riders from Yonge, which is already dangerously overcrowded.

Your stated approach of cutting corners now and building something else later is the kind of approach that has led to our current predicament.

 

[KhalilHeron]

That is not what I suggested.

I simply wrote that the DRL North was planned to go to Don Mills.

Which could be done faster is entirely up to the government - kind of like cancelling the previous plan and starting all over again.

And for the record, the capacity difference of about 20% is not only drastic, it's based on very unrealistic Ontario Line estimates provided by the government. It's likely even greater.



It makes perfect sense. The primary goal is to remove riders from Yonge, which is already dangerously overcrowded.

Your stated approach of cutting corners now and building something else later is the kind of approach that has led to our current predicament.

I don't see how taking a different approach is cutting corners. Cutting corners would be cutting features of the line or constructing it cheaply to save money, not redesigning it to use a different technology with its own set of trade-offs. The primary function of the line is to relieve line 1, not replace it, so it doesn't need the same capacity as line 1. The OL just won't get the ridership of Yonge... so we don't need to build it as if it will.

 

[syn]

I don't see how taking a different approach is cutting corners. Cutting corners would be cutting features of the line or constructing it cheaply to save money, not redesigning it to use a different technology with its own set of trade-offs. The primary function of the line is to relieve line 1, not replace it, so it doesn't need the same capacity as line 1. The OL just won't get the ridership of Yonge... so we don't need to build it as if it will.

I agree, in principal.

In this particular instance, however, cost considerations have been frequently mentioned as as rationale for this approach.

Based on the numbers presented, this line does not achieve it's primary function effectively.

It's incredibly short sighted to spend over $11 billion dollars on a project that isn't going to achieve it's primary objective. Out of the four major projects it's the one that would benefit the absolute most from 'future-proofing', as it's going to see the highest ridership by far.

I can only imagine where we'd be now if we decided to build the Yonge Subway Line to handle just a few decades worth of ridership increases.

We need to stop spending billions of extra dollars for capacity on suburban expansions that don't need it, and spend that money here, where it's actually needed.

Or, spend commensurate amounts everywhere, and ensure this line isn't maxed out while we're still turning back trains for the SSE.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It isn't impossible, the Rockets use their space quite inefficiently

That sounds like an endorsement of removing all transverse seats and going 100% cattle car.

Aside from the fact I would dislike this on a personal level; I would argue that would be a violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Many people feel physically ill when not facing forward (the direction of travel in a vehicle ) and/or are subject to side to side swaying.

I would support a legal challenge if transverse seating were not offered.

The wide-body design of the TR’s enables a floor plan with a greater ratio of standing vs sitting space. Narrower trains will inherently have proportionally less standing space (and thus fewer passengers per square meter) than a wider train with the same seating accommodations. In short, pax/m^2 is strongly correlated with the width of the train.

So somehow MX expects the OL rolling stock to significantly exceed the pax/m^2 of the TRs, despite the OL rolling stock being significantly narrower. It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe they're planning no seats?

I'm very, very, very suspect of MX's supposed loading standards with the OL. I've seen transit agencies time and time again use unrealistic loading standards to justify rolling stock purchases. Right here in Toronto, you can find documents claiming that the LFLRVs/Flexity Freedom can load up to 250 passengers. I guarantee you that has never happened in revenue service (you'd be lucky to fit 100 passengers in an LFLRV at peak hour). Transit operators grossly overestimating capacity (often for political reasons) is unfortunately the norm in this industry.