[innsertnamehere]

Because Metrolinx cited shorter/smaller trains as being a 'benefit' because it reduces crowing due to it being 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.

impacts are greatest beyond 2060 - i.e. when the 80m cars run out of capacity and need to be upgraded, which isn't in the study.

Also notable, Metrolinx isn't stupid, they understand that. This block of text is immediately following the part you quoted:

Based on these findings, the following considerations are noted for further development in the FBC for the Ontario Line:
• optimize train size and peak and off-peak frequencies to respond to customer need, demand levels, and travel patterns;
• include explicit off-peak forecasting and benefits analysis in future stages of planning and business case analysis; and
• explore how fare integration, off-peak fares, and other travel incentives could help manage demand relative to capacity on the Ontario Line and across the subway network.

I.e. they are going to study this impact a bit further and mitigate it for the full business case.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Now if the GO Trains get to have the same 5-minute headways as the TTC subways, then maybe another underground rapid transit line wouldn't be needed. (Insert laugh track here.)

 

[superelevation]

Proof? I understood the DRL would have been automated from day one. Ditto with Line 5 underground portion, it would also be automated.

If you have someone in the cab a big benefit of automation has not been achieved - Vancouver can put out more service because automation massively reduces service costs.

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

Vancouver has roughly 70 meter trains with an inefficient seating layout (almost no seats face inwards) with observed capacities around 550 people per train (the MK III). That the OL trains could carry 50 more people being wider and longer (and having longitudinal seating) is pretty clear.

 

[syn]

impacts are greatest beyond 2060 - i.e. when the 80m cars run out of capacity and need to be upgraded, which isn't in the study.

Also notable, Metrolinx isn't stupid, they understand that. This block of text is immediately following the part you quoted:



I.e. they are going to study this impact a bit further and mitigate it for the full business case.

None of which mitigates the audacity of trying to sell lower desirability and fewer riders choosing the OL over Line 1 as a benefit.

Considering the ridiculous sums of money being spent on suburban expansions (including billions to bury the EWLRT), the cost to build stations with 150m platforms is totally worth it.

Vancouver has roughly 70 meter trains with an inefficient seating layout (almost no seats face inwards) with observed capacities around 550 people per train (the MK III). That the OL trains could carry 50 more people being wider and longer (and having longitudinal seating) is pretty clear.

Agreed.

I was referring to his estimate that these trains could carry 1,000 people.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From link.

A "three metre car width" makes it wider than the Flexity Freedom light rail vehicle (2.65m), but narrower that the Toronto Rocket subway cars (3.124 m).

And the bad news...

The exact vehicle used for the Ontario Line will be determined by the successful proponent for the Rolling Stock, Systems, Operations and Maintenance (RSSOM) contract, based on Metrolinx’s requirements.

So still don't have the exact dimensions other than guesses.

 

[superelevation]

Another general note from someone working in the subway engineering world, capacity doesn't only depend on your train size or platform length, if it did the TTC would have no excuse for the low capacities they state for L1 (mid 30's) while someone here pointed out that the platforms and trains should enable capacities in the mid 40's. Track speeds and geometry, station spacings, train interior layout, train performance, and signaling performance all play a role.

Another major issue is terminal design, note that many of the highest frequency subway lines operating around the world, and systems like Montreal and Vancouver use very different terminal operations and designs that us. Often this can involve more than 2 platforms, or running beyond the inbound platform before returning to the outbound.

Suffice to say, the OL seems to be optimized for every other metric besides train length that is mostly not being discussed here. Since it is being designed for capacity things like geometry and terminal layouts would surely be designed as such. Stop spacings are also wide and OLE (overhead line electrification) also allows for higher tops speeds, which means higher track speeds and easier service recovery. Of course another major benefit of not using TR's is the trains can have more optimized interior layouts, with more doors and less congestion points.

I recommend looking into this page for some good insights on operations: http://www.railway-technical.com/operations/

I'd also recommend looking at some modern metro line terminals:

Sydney Metro: https://goo.gl/maps/QopX3TbeNuofASJm9
Jubilee Line: https://goo.gl/maps/oGWxF8WjXqh1E63DA

 

[superelevation]

From link.

View attachment 345395
A "three metre car width" makes it wider than the Flexity Freedom light rail vehicle (2.65m), but narrower that the Toronto Rocket subway cars (3.124 m).
View attachment 345396

And the bad news...

So still don't have the exact dimensions other than guesses.

This is good news at the end, it means that an international operator with more experiencing running metro systems will be making the train decision, not the TTC. Likely will mean a more modern and reputable train design.

 

[reteequa]

Have we gotten any of the reports that the bubble appears to be in 2021?

https://www.metrolinxengage.com/en/content/ontario-line-get-engaged

 

[ARG1]

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.

Uh, not really? While the TYSSE would benefit from Fare Integration it was by no means a necessity. York Regionites are used to having to pay a double fare in order to use the Subway (the most used bus route in the region is a Yonge Line feeder, and a good chunk of the bus network is built around bringing people to the TTC Subway network). While not an ideal solution, its one that commuters are used to and the TYSSE could use to get away with not having Fare Integration. Its a completely different story with GO where they want to entice TTC travelers to use this cool new Rapid Transit Service. The TTC is operated on the idea that one fare could get you anywhere within the city, the idea of having to pay an extra fare (ignoring the express bus services) in order to get a faster service is extremely foreign to many living in Toronto. In short these 2 scenarios are completely uncomparable.

 

[JSF-1]

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.

Fare integration alone won't help either. It will surely attract more riders but if we want to maximize ridership on the RER network then that means RER will have to be competitive with the Subway. One of the ways this will have to be achieved is through the time people wait for the train. I think its generally agreed upon on this site that RER should be aiming for 5-7 minute headways during rush-hour and 10-15 minute headways off-peak. This will help draw more riders off of the network and even ML knows this. The other issue though is one ML seems to be actively avoiding and that is accessibility. If we want RER to draw riders away from the Subway it will need to be more accessible and that means more stations. While fare integration and fast, competitive headways will attract new riders, the RER network will still remain out of reach to alot of potential riders. While we are building more stations as part of the RER network, the fact is we can and should build more. When you look at most other urban-rail networks around the world you find that many of them have a lot of stops and they follow an almost subway style stop spacing scheme with stops being closer togeather in the denser parts of the city while they are far apart outside of the city.

 

[Undead]

Metrolinx and the TTC also need to get over their complexes of working together and ensure there's local buses arriving at each GO station all day every 5-10 minutes. And transfers between the two need to be quickly and comfortably walkable.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Metrolinx and the TTC also need to get over their complexes of working together and ensure there's local buses arriving at each GO station all day every 5-10 minutes. And transfers between the two need to be quickly and comfortably walkable.

I don't think it's really an issue with working together it's because TTC buses are more frequent then go trains are. I have a hard time believing that we are going to see what go trains service as frequently as TTC subway trains are.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Metrolinx and the TTC also need to get over their complexes of working together and ensure there's local buses arriving at each GO station all day every 5-10 minutes. And transfers between the two need to be quickly and comfortably walkable.

The connection between the GO Stations and other transit agencies has to be better and more convenient. That includes pedestrian walk-ins and cyclists.

 

[Rainforest]

Another general note from someone working in the subway engineering world, capacity doesn't only depend on your train size or platform length, if it did the TTC would have no excuse for the low capacities they state for L1 (mid 30's) while someone here pointed out that the platforms and trains should enable capacities in the mid 40's. Track speeds and geometry, station spacings, train interior layout, train performance, and signaling performance all play a role.

Another major issue is terminal design, note that many of the highest frequency subway lines operating around the world, and systems like Montreal and Vancouver use very different terminal operations and designs that us. Often this can involve more than 2 platforms, or running beyond the inbound platform before returning to the outbound.

Suffice to say, the OL seems to be optimized for every other metric besides train length that is mostly not being discussed here. Since it is being designed for capacity things like geometry and terminal layouts would surely be designed as such. Stop spacings are also wide and OLE (overhead line electrification) also allows for higher tops speeds, which means higher track speeds and easier service recovery. Of course another major benefit of not using TR's is the trains can have more optimized interior layouts, with more doors and less congestion points.

I recommend looking into this page for some good insights on operations: http://www.railway-technical.com/operations/

I'd also recommend looking at some modern metro line terminals:

Sydney Metro: https://goo.gl/maps/QopX3TbeNuofASJm9
Jubilee Line: https://goo.gl/maps/oGWxF8WjXqh1E63DA

Should be noted that the majority of optimization benefits that can work for OL, can be added to Line 1 in the future. Signaling can be upgraded, train layout can be improved when it's time to procure new trains, etc. OL can have those advantages at the start, but the Yonge line can get them as well, somewhat later but at a reasonable cost.

Another point worth noting is that a higher speed, by itself, does not lead to a higher capacity. Capacity is the product of trains-per-hour and riders-per-train. The latter depends on the train size and layout, and doesn't depend on the speed. Trains-per-hour is 3600 divided by the minimal allowed headway in seconds. With a higher speed, trains have to stay further apart to run safely, but the train covers that higher distance faster because of the speed. Thus the headway, expressed in seconds, remains the same.

The Yonge line might have some permanent operational disadvantages due to the legacy features, such as the tight station spacing in downtown, or the tight curve from the Yonge alignment to Union. Those could be making it difficult to maintain the optimal headway, and thus reduce the capacity somewhat. But by how much? Probably no more than 10%.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Think many times we have seen trains enter stations (especially at rush hour) slow, because of crowding on the platforms. This is a "safety" requirement. If they actually had the funds available, the TTC could install platform screen doors, once the automated train and door controls is completed. In fact, they could be installing them already for the stations already in the sections that have ATC. However, the accountants and anti-transit politicians refuse to do so now, because "it is not in the budget".