Steve X
Senior Member
Toronto simply need a new line. Toronto didn't run into the capacity problem within a few years of the system's opening. The system is planned well with 6 car train lengths and lasted well into the 80s before the whole issue popped up. The forecast was sufficient as ML only plans for 30 years right now too. Vancouver simply underestimated and wasted all the money and time for some 2 car trains with very limited expansion length. Toronto didn't suffer from a design issue but political disagreement and funds.And Toronto doesn't have capacity problems? We have a huge subset of the population that has simply given up on our system for the sole reason of our crowding. It's downright dangerous. I'm also not sure how a 2-car Canada Line would be the 'only part of Vancouver's system that counts as a metro', but its 4-6 car trains don't. Just because Canada Line is 50cm wider shouldn't make a difference. The 2.5m trains share the same width as Montreal's system.
Also, I can't really see how UPX is a shining example in how it compares with Canada Line. Ignoring the general failure of UPX's premium fare premise: one line is 3.5m frequency (w/ 7min frequency to YVR) and has a capacity of 335; the other line is 15min frequency to YYZ and a capacity of 173. UPX's trains aren't even designed for standees and the infrastructure was set out to be a high-class low-use service. In other words UPX has lower capacity and lower frequency, and with its price reduction will likely have a much graver future than Canada Line ever will. No question CL should've been built with longer trains, but IMO it's much more forward-thinking and straphanger-friendly.
Toronto constantly overbuilds the system. Sheppard and the TYSSE is overbuilt for many years to come costing a lot more than Vancouver. Vancouver does the exact oppose by building just enough and underestimates ridership. In long terms, Toronto will be better off than Vancouver. They aren't surface LRT platforms e.g. Calgary which can easily expand without huge issues.
In engineering terms, the skytrain system is actual a light metro and not heavy rail unlike Toronto and Montreal. The SRT being the same as skytrains is not consider heavy rail metro either. It's somewhere in between light and heavy rail. The technology is not designed for capacity like Toronto or Montreal. Narrower trains have nothing to do with this. The Canada line is using heavy rail technology but they just crippled the line by short trains. We should consider the Eglinton LRT as part of the length too. In transit terms, the entire Vancouver metro system is entirely made up of medium capacity trains. Montreal and Toronto both have subway lines that can carry more people than Vancouver. Anyways, technical term is stupid. We should consider all rail public transit with frequent service as RT. Hence Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and soon Ottawa are all comparable with Toronto and Montreal's system length.
I never compared the UPX to the Canada line. It serves a different purpose but it exists as public transportation for Toronto serving all times except overnight. Vancouver doesn't have any other rail system besides the Sky train. The West coast express is just a peak direction only service. Like the Milton and Richmond Hill GO lines.