News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 28K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.7K     0 

11th

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
469
Would've been really convenient for the City Hall bureaucrats! I admit that it is kind of romantic to have a "City Hall Station", but it makes no sense and it would've just bypassed two important subway stations! Honestly, what were they thinking? 😂

Yes, but not everyone wants to walk such a long distance. Doesn't seem like a good argument, considering how many people commute to the Financial District and how important Union Station is as a transportation hub. The fact that this is of the most important employment hubs in the entire region means that we can't dismiss the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people. Some people like to walk, but many are commuting in from faraway suburbs and the last thing you want to do is make their journey even more tedious.
We can't just say, "it's okay, we'll build a City Hall station for the bureaucrats, but the rest of you people can just walk 10-15 minutes."
5 minutes walk gets you to King or Dundas from Queen. I don't see that being a long distance. 400m to a suburbanite is nothing.
 

Nate_theUrbanist

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
6
Reaction score
13
Would've been really convenient for the City Hall bureaucrats! I admit that it is kind of romantic to have a "City Hall Station", but it makes no sense and it would've just bypassed two important subway stations! Honestly, what were they thinking? 😂

Yes, but not everyone wants to walk such a long distance. Doesn't seem like a good argument, considering how many people commute to the Financial District and how important Union Station is as a transportation hub. The fact that this is of the most important employment hubs in the entire region means that we can't dismiss the convenience of hundreds of thousands of people. Some people like to walk, but many are commuting in from faraway suburbs and the last thing you want to do is make their journey even more tedious.
We can't just say, "it's okay, we'll build a City Hall station for the bureaucrats, but the rest of you people can just walk 10-15 minutes."
I think you're forgetting GO here. By the time to Ontario Line is finished, we'd hopefully have GO RER running 100%. For people heading towards Union Station, it would be far more economical to have them just take GO from their suburban neighbourhoods. Especially if we get fare intergration, taking GO and walking a few blocks via Path might be preferable for suburban commuters.

Either way, I'd argue you'd have less disruption and likely lower costs tunneling under Queen instead of King. In front of Old City Hall is really the only part of downtown you *could* shut down completely. Couldn't do that anywhere on King.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
This is a subway, full stop. This isn't light rail, this isn't light metro, this is a metro/subway. This is standard Metro technology that will have more capacity on opening day than Line 1 has today. Sure there could be an argument for wanting to make this line compatible with the rest of our network, but that doesn't mean this is some cheap toy train. This is as Subway as you can possibly get. As for why its under Queen Street, I already explained why.
Is that true? I thought that on opening day it would have a capacity of 34*600 = 20400, which is definitely less than line 1. I agree with everything else you said.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
4,703
City:
Toronto
Is that true? I thought that on opening day it would have a capacity of 34*600 = 20400, which is definitely less than line 1. I agree with everything else you said.
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers if we assume all cars can hold the same number of passengers (realistically it doesn't, but for the sake of this comparison, the variation is fairly minimal). At 90s headways, or 40 tph, that's 36.6k PPHPD, significantly more than than Line 1 under the block signalling system which is at 26200 PPHPD. After ATC, yes Line 1 will once again have a much larger PPHPD than the Ontario Line, but if the last 70 years are any indication, its going to be A LONG TIME before that 36.6k becomes a significant problem, and at that point we can easily justify building a new line.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers on the conservative side. At 90s headways, or 40 tph, that's 36.6k PPHPD, significantly more than than Line 1 under the block signalling system which is at 26200 PPHPD. After ATC, yes Line 1 will once again have a much larger PPHPD than the Ontario Line, but if the last 70 years are any indication, its going to be A LONG TIME before that 36.6k becomes a significant problem, and at that point we can easily justify building a new line.
Those estimates seem reasonable. Even if that's not planned for opening day, I get what you mean. Why do you think the train capacity numbers in the PDBC are so much lower than your estimate? (750 vs 916.7)
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
4,703
City:
Toronto
Those estimates seem reasonable. Even if that's not planned for opening day, I get what you mean. Why do you think the train capacity numbers in the PDBC are so much lower than your estimate? (750 vs 916.7)
I'm not sure, but its likely that the PDBC is based off older estimates - perhaps assuming narrower trains (remember that they are still working on the fine details, and whatever assumptions they made when they wrote during the PDBC almost certainly do not reflect current plans). The most up to date publicly available specifications assume 3m wide and 100m long trains, which matches the Metropolis almost perfectly (3035 mm). Also I believe I have seen the 36k PPHPD marker written in an official document or press release however I can't exactly say for sure.
 

gamarad

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
7
I'm not sure, but its likely that the PDBC is based off older estimates - perhaps assuming narrower trains (remember that they are still working on the fine details, and whatever assumptions they made when they wrote during the PDBC almost certainly do not reflect current plans). The most up to date publicly available specifications assume 3m wide and 100m long trains, which matches the Metropolis almost perfectly (3035 mm). Also I believe I have seen the 36k PPHPD marker written in an official document or press release however I can't exactly say for sure.
I'm having a hard time tracking down the 1100 people capacity on the 120m Alstom Metropolis TS. I keep finding the same dead link. And that number seems high to me. It's the same as the TRs which are significantly bigger. Full longitudinal seating accounts for some of that, but not all. Plus, the 76.20m x 2.94m Metropolis trains on the REM only have a capacity of 600 which would imply a capacity around 800 on the OL trains. If you do come across that 36k PPHPD figure again I'd like to see it.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
4,703
City:
Toronto
Is it really 100m now? The PDBC changed it from 100 to 80, so that's a relief! :)
That's new. The only mention of 80m was an option to start at 80m long trains on opening day, but still build the line with 100m long platforms

I'm having a hard time tracking down the 1100 people capacity on the 120m Alstom Metropolis TS. I keep finding the same dead link. And that number seems high to me. It's the same as the TRs which are significantly bigger. Full longitudinal seating accounts for some of that, but not all. Plus, the 76.20m x 2.94m Metropolis trains on the REM only have a capacity of 600 which would imply a capacity around 800 on the OL trains. If you do come across that 36k PPHPD figure again I'd like to see it.
That's fair, but let's assume that these trains will carry the more pessimistic REM specifications. That's still 32k PPHPD, which is still more than Line 1 today.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
3,218
If we use the Alstom Metropolis as a guide (which is the type of train that Metrolinx is eyeing at), a 6 car Alstom Metropolis TS which is used in Sydney has a max capacity of 1100. The Ontario Line will have 100m long platforms - long enough for 5 cars, so approximately 916.7 passengers if we assume all cars can hold the same number of passengers (realistically it doesn't, but for the sake of this comparison, the variation is fairly minimal). At 90s headways, or 40 tph
IIRC the PDBC called for shorter trains and fewer tph at opening with a provision for expansion later. It’s been known for a while, and there was quite a discussion on it in this thread.

That’s why your numbers are larger.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
3,218
F6736B5F-F323-41F4-B921-0D74A9D4D955.jpeg
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,120
City:
Toronto
5 minutes walk gets you to King or Dundas from Queen. I don't see that being a long distance. 400m to a suburbanite is nothing.
Why would someone (who is fit) want to transfer from the Ontario Line to go one station? They may have to wait 5 minutes for the next train, because you missed one as you enter the station. Within that same 5 minutes of walking they would be at their destination. (We have an emergency situation northbound at Dundas Station. Trains are being held for a few minutes on Line 1.)
 

Kitsune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
453
City:
Toronto

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
4,703
City:
Toronto
IIRC the PDBC called for shorter trains and fewer tph at opening with a provision for expansion later. It’s been known for a while, and there was quite a discussion on it in this thread.

That’s why your numbers are larger.
As I said.
That's new. The only mention of 80m was an option to start at 80m long trains on opening day, but still build the line with 100m long platforms
I'm still using the maximum design capacity since upgrading the system to 100m long trains would cost almost nothing so making a distinction between the 80 and 100m variants isn't important. The platforms will be built for 100m in either case, the only change that would have to be made is adding a 5th car which wouldn't be difficult.
 

Top