[toronto647]

What was crappy about the first route?

What qualifies as 'slightly worse capacity'?

The line only going to Pape was an utter dissapointment. The line had to go till Eglinton for any realistic easing on the Yonge Line. I rather the line have lower capacity and it go to Eglinton . The DRL North (until Sheppard) was not anticipated to finish until the mid 2030s. At least now the RL line goes to Eglinton in the first phase by the late 2020s at the latest.

 

[ARG1]

What was crappy about the first route?

What was crappy is that it followed the same dumb design conventions that have plagued subway design in this city since the 1950s, that is focusing too much on following specific streets. All the DRL was was just a subway that followed Queen St and Pape Ave, it was quite literally the "bare minimum" of a relief line. The great thing about building subways, especially since we stopped using Cut and Cover (for better or for worse), is that you're free to route the subway anywhere you want, so instead of focusing on following streets, the focus should be on connecting points of interest. This is what the Ontario Line does really well, instead of just following Queen St. It diverges down to King St. allowing easy access to the Distillery District, a very large location of interest, then because of the fact that it uses the LSE corridor it will allow for cross platform connection to the East Harbour GO station. I feel like this point is often ignored, but with GO RER in the works, we need to stop looking at the TTC Subway and GO transit as different entities, and instead look at GO as a London Overground style metro system. This means we need to be prioritizing proper interchanges between the two systems. We should no longer be satisfied with Main Street-Danforth, Bloor-Dundas West, or even Leslie-Oriole style connections where even though they're "interchanges" they resemble more like NYC Subway interchanges where its just 2 separate stations that are somewhat close enough to be called interchanges, but are cumbersome and timely to go through. This is exactly what we would've gotten with the DRL, 2 stations that are somewhat close, but are still separated enough to be a major inconvenience to anyone switching between the two. This is further amplified by the existence of the western portion from Osgoode allowing direct connections to Exhibition Station, thus showing the 2 aspects of the OL, not just a way to relieve Bloor-Yonge like what the DRL was going to do, but also as a way to relieve Union Station, a station that has been growing significantly and is also risking to become overcrowded.

 

[Coolstar]

The line only going to Pape was an utter dissapointment. The line had to go till Eglinton for any realistic easing on the Yonge Line. I rather the line have lower capacity and it go to Eglinton . The DRL North (until Sheppard) was not anticipated to finish until the mid 2030s. At least now the RL line goes to Eglinton in the first phase by the late 2020s at the latest.

To add to that, Metrolinx did state that the terminal stations will be designed for future extensions to the north and to the west.

 

[toronto647]

To add to that, Metrolinx did state that the terminal stations will be designed for future extensions to the north and to the west

The DRL North portion was targeted to be built in the mid 2030s and the DRL West portion by late 2030s. On top of that DRL North / West was never guaranteed so who knows a new party could have come in and cancelled it even meaning DRL North/West could potentially never get built which is entirely plausible with Toronto's transit record. Even if there is a miracle and all parties agree to fund the DRL N/W that would be ridiculous as we would have to wait 20 years (mind boggling)... Ontario Line will cover a similar and arguably better route by late 2020s and I don't know why anyone would even cast shade for the Ontario Line. Yes its not perfect but in life is anything really perfect like a utopian society? NO. Lets get the Ontario Line built!!

 

[MisterF]

On the contrary, Toronto's transit record shows that the busier subway lines get extended multiple times after the first phase is built. Lines 1 and 2 have both been extended repeatedly. The relief line would have been one of the busiest (second only to line 1 as I recall), so there's every reason to think that it would also get extended repeatedly. Especially since planning for the second phase was already well underway. There's nothing in Toronto's transit record to suggest that it wouldn't happen.

Meanwhile, the OL has no planning whatsoever to go to Sheppard. The argument that the OL is better because it's longer is nonsense.

 

[Coolstar]

The DRL North portion was targeted to be built in the mid 2030s and the DRL West portion by late 2030s. On top of that DRL North / West was never guaranteed so who knows a new party could have come in and cancelled it even meaning DRL North/West could potentially never get built which is entirely plausible with Toronto's transit record. Even if there is a miracle and all parties agree to fund the DRL N/W that would be ridiculous as we would have to wait 20 years (mind boggling)... Ontario Line will cover a similar and arguably better route by late 2020s and I don't know why anyone would even cast shade for the Ontario Line. Yes its not perfect but in life is anything really perfect like a utopian society? NO. Lets get the Ontario Line built!!

No I meant the terminal stations for the Ontario Line will be protected for future extensions to the north (most likely Don Mills) and to the west.

 

[syn]

The line only going to Pape was an utter dissapointment. The line had to go till Eglinton for any realistic easing on the Yonge Line. I rather the line have lower capacity and it go to Eglinton . The DRL North (until Sheppard) was not anticipated to finish until the mid 2030s. At least now the RL line goes to Eglinton in the first phase by the late 2020s at the latest.

It was called the Relief Line South for a reason - it was never meant to be the entire line.

The entire reason the province took over subway construction is that they could use their financial wherewithal to construct subways without delay.

Why not just build the DRL South and DRL North at once as one line?

 

[ARG1]

It was called the Relief Line South for a reason - it was never meant to be the entire line.

The entire reason the province took over subway construction is that they could use their financial wherewithal to construct subways without delay.

Why not just build the DRL South and DRL North at once as one line?

For the many reasons I explained multiple times already, focusing on the DRL sections of the Ontario Line alone, it makes a lot more sense than the DRL, and is far more reasonably priced.

 

[syn]

For the many reasons I explained multiple times already, focusing on the DRL sections of the Ontario Line alone, it makes a lot more sense than the DRL, and is far more reasonably priced.

It's 'reasonably priced' because it's almost guaranteed that they aren't providing accurate figures and they're also cutting corners.

The DRL plan could've been similarly modified to hit the Distillery District, without compromising future GO capacity.

 

[M II A II R II K]

A cheaper Ontario Line could open up the door for a 2nd relief line. Perhaps one that runs through Dundas and Gerrard in one of its segments.

 

[NoahB]

The more flexible and slightly cheaper tech that will be used for the Ontario Line will make it easier to extend the line in the future.( e.g. at grade and elevated in the suburbs Vancouver-style) And dont keep repeating that the capacity will be too low for that. It is not. The capacity for the system (20k on launch, 34K at max frequency) will be higher than what's scheduled for the Bloor line (26K PPHPD now, 33K with signal upgrades). This new line is only 15km which is almost half the Bloor line's length.

I don't want to hear how 90s frequencies are impossible. The half a century old Victoria Line in London can consistently run at 100s/36 trains per hour during the 3h rush hour windows in the morning and evening. Vancouver can also (and does sometimes) go under 90s (to almost 70s in recovery mode) when they have enough trains. and that is all without platform screen doors!

I'm looking forward to automating out TTC's procedurally lax performance standards. It's time for Toronto to get modern metro system.

More about the Victoria Line: THE NINETY SECOND RAILWAY: MAKING THE VICTORIA THE MOST FREQUENT METRO IN THE WORLD

 

[syn]

The more flexible and slightly cheaper tech that will be used for the Ontario Line will make it easier to extend the line in the future.( e.g. at grade and elevated in the suburbs Vancouver-style) And dont keep repeating that the capacity will be too low for that. It is not. The capacity for the system (20k on launch, 34K at max frequency) will be higher than what's scheduled for the Bloor line (26K PPHPD now, 33K with signal upgrades). This new line is only 15km which is almost half the Bloor line's length.

I don't want to hear how 90s frequencies are impossible. The half a century old Victoria Line in London can consistently run at 100s/36 trains per hour during the 3h rush hour windows in the morning and evening. Vancouver is can also (and does sometimes) go under 90s (to almost 70s in recovery mode) when they have enough trains. and that is all without platform screen doors!

I'm looking forward to automating out TTC's procedurally lax performance standards. It's time for Toronto to get modern metro system.

More about the Victoria Line: THE NINETY SECOND RAILWAY: MAKING THE VICTORIA THE MOST FREQUENT METRO IN THE WORLD
View attachment 259070

What makes it more flexible?

What are the vehicle specs?

 

[NoahB]

What makes it more flexible?

What are the vehicle specs?

Do I need to do all the work for you? It's all in the Initial Business Case. I would say its required reading if anyone wants to keep spewing opinions on the Ontario Line forum.

Here you go:

*Note that the capacity crowding standard used is more generous than the world standard of 4 persons /sq. m.


The initial proposal might be 'back of a napkin'. But all the things Metrolinx has proposed has been built before around the world by Siemens, Alstom, and Bombardier. You can check them on their websites.

Or you can look up the following for an off the shelf ballpark of a new-build modern automated metro systems:
Sydney Metro, Dubai Metro, Riyadh Metro, Paris Line 14, Taipei Wenhu line, and Doha Metro.

You will notice that the train systems above (like the Skytrain) can take steep grades and curves. They also can be built on smaller guide-ways when elevated. Making them more flexible to needle through streets and neighbourhoods.

 

[syn]

Do I need to do all the work for you? It's all in the Initial Business Case. I would say its required reading if anyone wants to keep spewing opinions on the Ontario Line forum.

Here you go:

View attachment 259109
View attachment 259110
*Note that the capacity crowding standard used is more generous than the world standard of 4 sq. m.


The initial proposal might be 'back of a napkin'. But all the things Metrolinx has proposed has been built before around the world by Siemens, Alstom, and Bombardier. You can check them on their websites.

Or you can look up the following for an off the shelf ballpark of a new-build modern automated metro systems:
Sydney Metro, Dubai Metro, Riyadh Metro, Paris Line 14, Taipei Wenhu line, and Doha Metro.

You will notice that the train systems above (like the Skytrain) can take steep grades and curves. They also can be built on smaller guide-ways when elevated. Making them more flexible to needle through streets and neighbourhoods.

I've seen that. Based on their own calculations you're looking at a max capacity 15% lower than using standard subway stock.

The other problem is that this is essentially conjecture. For example:

*exact length and number of cars to be finalized at financial close by winning proponent

The exact length and number of cars is a key factor, yet right now we're left to assume a best case scenario. Ford transit plans always present best case scenarios that aren't terribly realistic.

This plan has been put together so quickly and with so little detail that we're making assumptions based on other transit systems. The problem is that even a small change in train length and car size could reduce the capacity even further beyond that 15% gap.

That's unacceptable for this line.

 

[syn]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1286306653017649152