KhalilHeron said:
not to mention the OL actually relieves line 1, 2, and 5 more than the DRL would have in the same timeframe
Click to expand...

Not suggesting that we should go back to the original RL - but that timeframe you have cited is entirely artificial and determined by Metrolinx themselves (they are the one responsible for RL-North planning).

AoD
 
KhalilHeron said:
It's still projected to have a capacity of 24k-30k ppdph by 2041, which is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
The Relief Line North was projected to have peak demand of 20k pphpd by 2031. We're putting a lot of faith in these ridership projections being exactly right by building a line with as little as 24k pphpd.
 
nfitz said:
Windfall? If their house prices rise higher than average in the city, their property taxes will increase. If one has no intention of moving, soaring neighbourhood house prices is no windfall.

Though really shouldn't be an issue one way or another.
Click to expand...
Worst case, there is the Canadian Cardboard Box plan (reverse mortgage).
 
syn said:
I realize that isn't a possibility. That's why the line has to have the absolute maximum capacity available. That should be the number one goal, and we should make sure it happens even if it involves a greater investment.

20 years is not a very long time. The Sheppard Line's 20th anniversary is next year.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't max capacity available include quad tracking and running express trains? Only half kidding.
 
syn said:
I believe the original projections were 24,000 - 30,000 pphpd, which has since been downgraded.

It's about 20% less than the original DRL plan, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Yikes, where' can I read the latest numbers from? If this is the case, I'd like to think the range of 24k-30k indicates that the system will initially be operating at a low end of 24k with the ability to have service expanded to service 30k pphpd. Which is still a higher design capacity than Line 1 today. But if they do choose a line with a capacity of 24k-26k that would be a limiting factor in extensions and be rather close to whatever projected ridership they anticipate :(

The reason I prefer the OL over DRL is the flexibility of the trains used allowed for elevated construction, along with a better alignment+interchanges with other modes. However, I do have 3 criticisms, and one of them is the lack of clarity on whether or not platforms will be expandable for future growth. I don't see a problem using these smaller trains at higher frequency, but allowing for the use of longer trains in the future is good - we don't need to use the TRs like DRL just to get high capacity, if all we need to do is attach more cars to an OL train to match it. ezpz.

In Sydney, the current metro is built for 6-car trains with a capacity of 33k pphpd (2 minute headways). There is provision to extend platforms to accomodate 8-car trains and 45k pphpd. That's pretty high but that's also their primary metro line. If OL uses 5-car 750 passenger trains, the capacity ideally is 30k pphpd. Now, if we roughed in a 40 metre platform extension at the 8 underground stations (this is less than what's roughed in for the Sheppard Line, btw), then we expand its capacity to 42k pphpd with 7 car trains carrying 1050 passengers each. This is all just wishful thinking, I haven't seen anything that suggests they're considering provisions for running longer trains ;)
 
slapped_chicken said:
Yikes, where' can I read the latest numbers from? If this is the case, I'd like to think the range of 24k-30k indicates that the system will initially be operating at a low end of 24k with the ability to have service expanded to service 30k pphpd. Which is still a higher design capacity than Line 1 today. But if they do choose a line with a capacity of 24k-26k that would be a limiting factor in extensions and be rather close to whatever projected ridership they anticipate :(

The reason I prefer the OL over DRL is the flexibility of the trains used allowed for elevated construction, along with a better alignment+interchanges with other modes. However, I do have 3 criticisms, and one of them is the lack of clarity on whether or not platforms will be expandable for future growth. I don't see a problem using these smaller trains at higher frequency, but allowing for the use of longer trains in the future is good - we don't need to use the TRs like DRL just to get high capacity, if all we need to do is attach more cars to an OL train to match it. ezpz.

In Sydney, the current metro is built for 6-car trains with a capacity of 33k pphpd (2 minute headways). There is provision to extend platforms to accomodate 8-car trains and 45k pphpd. That's pretty high but that's also their primary metro line. If OL uses 5-car 750 passenger trains, the capacity ideally is 30k pphpd. Now, if we roughed in a 40 metre platform extension at the 8 underground stations (this is less than what's roughed in for the Sheppard Line, btw), then we expand its capacity to 42k pphpd with 7 car trains carrying 1050 passengers each. This is all just wishful thinking, I haven't seen anything that suggests they're considering provisions for running longer trains ;)
Click to expand...
Yea hopefully they build the stations with provisions for future service expansion. Their wording has been pretty vague but it does seem like 24kppdph will be the capacity when the line opens, 30k will be the capacity by 2041. Also, future technologies and expanded or new msfs could allow for even higher frequencies. Like the Line one ATC of the future
 
syn said:
I believe the original projections were 24,000 - 30,000 pphpd, which has since been downgraded.

It's about 20% less than the original DRL plan, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
IIRC metrolinx plans on mandating a capacity of 30,000 PPHPD as a part of the bidding process, with opening day being less from tains not running as frequently.

And why is that unacceptable? As others have said, its more than any subway line in Toronto today. The Yonge Line is the second busiest line on the continent, handles three quarters of a million passengers a day, and that ridership is handled with about 26,000 pphpd.

Are we really saying its unacceptable to save sevaral billion dollars, just because, maybe, just maybe, several generations from now the line might start experiencing capacity issues?

I'm honestly confused by the obsession about capacity on this board. It's never brought up in the LRT threads (Especially the Scarborough Subway Thread, which had ridership projections in the upper ranges of LRT capacity on opening day), yet here everyone treats the OL like it's a useless piece of trash because it doesn't have a marginal amount of additional capacity that won't be required until, at best, the 2060's. And even if it had that capacity, it would stave off the "relief line for the relief line" by maybe only a decade at best.
 
innsertnamehere said:
IIRC metrolinx plans on mandating a capacity of 30,000 PPHPD as a part of the bidding process, with opening day being less from tains not running as frequently.

And why is that unacceptable? As others have said, its more than any subway line in Toronto today. The Yonge Line is the second busiest line on the continent, handles three quarters of a million passengers a day, and that ridership is handled with about 26,000 pphpd.

Are we really saying its unacceptable to save sevaral billion dollars, just because, maybe, just maybe, several generations from now the line might start experiencing capacity issues?

I'm honestly confused by the obsession about capacity on this board. It's never brought up in the LRT threads (Especially the Scarborough Subway Thread, which had ridership projections in the upper ranges of LRT capacity on opening day), yet here everyone treats the OL like it's a useless piece of trash because it doesn't have a marginal amount of additional capacity that won't be required until, at best, the 2060's. And even if it had that capacity, it would stave off the "relief line for the relief line" by maybe only a decade at best.
Click to expand...

Setting aside any non-capacity issues ( I have outlined some ecological concerns in respect of the more northerly Don Valley Crossing and environs); and sub-optimal station locations; and problems with various technical assumptions.........

Its important to evaluate the capacity issue holistically.

By which I mean, one must consider its impacts on the LSE corridor in terms of diminished capacity for GO and VIA.........

One must also consider in respect of O/L capacity itself that the methodology initially outlined for calculating capacity was extremely dubious.

Assumptions were made which I find wholly unsupportable.

(in respect of persons per m2)

****

Also important, is to allow that Line 1 is overloaded; there there is therefore latent demand; and that the object here is not to spend north of 10B (possibly a lot north of)...... in order to get short-term relief only.
 
innsertnamehere said:
IIRC metrolinx plans on mandating a capacity of 30,000 PPHPD as a part of the bidding process, with opening day being less from tains not running as frequently.

And why is that unacceptable? As others have said, its more than any subway line in Toronto today. The Yonge Line is the second busiest line on the continent, handles three quarters of a million passengers a day, and that ridership is handled with about 26,000 pphpd.

Are we really saying its unacceptable to save sevaral billion dollars, just because, maybe, just maybe, several generations from now the line might start experiencing capacity issues?

I'm honestly confused by the obsession about capacity on this board. It's never brought up in the LRT threads (Especially the Scarborough Subway Thread, which had ridership projections in the upper ranges of LRT capacity on opening day), yet here everyone treats the OL like it's a useless piece of trash because it doesn't have a marginal amount of additional capacity that won't be required until, at best, the 2060's. And even if it had that capacity, it would stave off the "relief line for the relief line" by maybe only a decade at best.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The refined operating concept calls for 600 people per train, at a max operating capacity of 40 trains per hour by 2041 (24,000 pphpd). That's a very optimistic take for 2041, assuming everything goes according to plan. We're leaving no margin for error.

We won't need extra capacity several generations from now. The Yonge Line is already over capacity.

The original DRL plan using standard TTC subway cars would offer about 20-25% greater capacity.

Not spending now to implement the highest capacity solution is the very definition of penny wise, pound foolish - especially when we're more than happy to spend many billions extra for other projects that don't need the capacity.
 
Last edited:
syn said:
This 'News Blog' does almost nothing to address long term community concerns. It's all about community impact during construction.

I wonder if they'll release "News" on why the SSE and and EWLRT have to be underground.
Click to expand...
As well as a changed landscape, significantly historic characteristics, and extra expropriation.
 
syn said:
This 'News Blog' does almost nothing to address long term community concerns. It's all about community impact during construction.

I wonder if they'll release "News" on why the SSE and and EWLRT have to be underground.
Click to expand...

Just for some context on why I posted it, I hadn't seen it posted yet and if I see some new public content and it's not in a thread, I'll post it. It's not meant as agreeing or disagreeing with the content, unless I add commentary or my two cents. Just a heads up that it exists.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top