Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[44 North]

Reintroducing a streetcar service that previously existed isn't really "expansion", is it? So I don't count Spadina or St Clair, or Harbourfront for that matter. (The Spadina streetcar is also slower than the bus service it replaced, and St. Clair is a gong-show, so maybe they aren't good examples regardless.)

As for the Cherry Loop, I had it in my list but removed it, because then at that point I might as well start listing the other really small things that've been introduced: "New parking lot at Mimico GO! (2014)", "192 Airport Rocket! (2000)", "Walmer Road exit at Spadina! (1997)"... none of that stuff moves the needle.

But you're tallying up in median LRT stops. With the exception of being designed for 30m vehicles instead of 60m, the routes mentioned have stops and built infrastructure almost identical to FW or EE. And Spadina/Harbourfront definitely weren't streetcars before they were built. Whether it's fast or slow is another argument, and I actually wouldn't be too surprised if a chart showed future FW or EE were not as fast as the buses they replaced for portions of the day.

 

[NoahB]

The trick is to hit 90 second headways when you have 70,000 pesky passengers on your transit line screwing up your operations in 70,000 little ways. Every passenger the hits a passenger assist alarm will impact your headways. Every passenger that hold open doors, even if only for a few seconds, will hit your headways. Passengers struggling to board or exit crowded trains and stations will impact your headways (hint: another reason we can't just ignore the problem of train size).

When trains are running that frequent, management of headways is no longer just a question of the technical ability of the tracks and signals and switches and rolling stick. Rather, it becomes a question of managing tens of thousands of passengers to ensure that they aren't screwing up your operations. And at those headways there is very little margin for error.

Metros rarely run at their max speeds. But in Vancouver, the Skytrain runs at its 70s 'recovery mode' every time one of those tiny problems you mention happens. To do that it safely increases (or decreases) its speed to catch up. That's the great thing about automation. It can do a typically risky procedure, for a human driver, safely. Also, a passenger assist alarm can shut down a line, but the automated trains can get back to formation faster and more elegantly,

If they were using standard TTC subway gauge for the line like RL, they would most likely use the same new trains they're planning to acquire for Line 2, not the rockets. At a minimum, those should be at least as good as MTL's.



Oh, i always assumed they'd be slightly narrower, although I'm not aware by how much. This is fine to me.

How long are the proposed OL platforms vs. our other platforms?

The OL's expected 3m is 12.4cm narrower than the TR's 3.124m. It might be hard to notice the size difference by just looking but the cars will feel a little 'tighter'. I'm sure most won't notice it unless the train gets too full.

According to the OL initial business case:
The OL is assumed to be around 100m x 3m

Montreal's 'Azure' MPM-10 is 152.43m x 2.51m
Montreal's Alstom REM is 76.2m x 2.94m


In terms of platforms (roughly; please correct me if I'm wrong):

Montreal Metro: 152m
TTC Line 1 & 2: about 150m (right?) with some stations having slightly shorter platforms.
TTC Line 4: 90m expandable to 140m
Edmonton LRT: 123m
Ottawa Confederation Line: 90m expandable to 120m
Calgary C-Train: 100m
TTC Line 5 - Crosstown: 60m expandable to 90m
Vancouver Millennium & Expo Lines: 80m
Montreal REM: 80m
Ottawa Trillium Line: 40m currently being expanded to 80m.
Scarborough RT: 53-76m
Vancouver Canada Line: 40m expandable to 50m

 

[warrens]

Ultimately there is no guarantee of how the system will perform at peak hour, until we unleash 70,000 groggy Torontonians on the system at 8 AM and let them wreak havoc.

The thing is, this is a problem we can't necessarily build our way out of.

We usually talk about "induced demand" in relation to widening highways (Highway 401 being a gold-star example), but it does apply to rail transit as well. Increase the frequency or availability of service, and more people will show up to use it.

So, Toronto is eventually going to need to get significantly more clever at encouraging congestion-reducing behaviour. For example: Tokyo was (still is?) trying something on the Tozai Line called the "Off Peak Project" whereby commuters are incentivized to travel before typical peak hours. Do it 10 work days in a row, win a bowl of soba noodles.

 

[officedweller]

Here's a chart showing the consistency of SkyTrain headways back in 1995 (25 years ago!)
You can see that every 3rd train had a 90 second headway. The trains would have been scheduled that way.
Note that the vertical scale only goes to 180 seconds compared to the other systems.

Chapter 8: Rail Transit Capacity | Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition |The National Academies Press

Read chapter Chapter 8: Rail Transit Capacity: TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Man...

www.nap.edu

Full manual here:

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition |The National Academies Press

Download a PDF of "Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition" by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for free.

www.nap.edu

 

[smallspy]

There are not *hundreds* of automated systems for you to have ridden, unless you are talking about people movers (really not a metro), or ATC subways (really not automated in the sense we are discussing).

List of semi-automatic train systems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps "hundreds" is a slight understatement.

But many multiple dozens isn't. I do a lot of travelling (or at least did prior to March), and have been to many places and used many systems.

There's also no need for the line to operate at 90's on day one and I don't think they have ever proposed that, and surely not ever all-day long at final state because if you need to hit 90s on peak you will not need to off-peak.

You're right - there is no need to operate at 90 second headways from day one. It is unlikely to ever require a 90 second headway outside of rush hours.

But if you don't design it properly prior to day one, than it will never be possible to achieve those headways.

Dan

 

[warrens]

The OL's expected 3m is 12.4cm narrower than the TR's 3.124m. It might be hard to notice the size difference by just looking but the cars will feel a little 'tighter'. I'm sure most won't notice it unless the train gets too full.

Something we should keep in mind when discussing width is that the TR's walls are completely vertical, which maximizes interior space. The Metropolis trains Alstom built for Shanghai are 3.2m in width, but feel more cramped than the TR because it curves in at head height.

If we get 3.0m wide trains that also curve inwards, that's probably going to be a problem.

 

[afransen]

The thing is, this is a problem we can't necessarily build our way out of.

We usually talk about "induced demand" in relation to widening highways (Highway 401 being a gold-star example), but it does apply to rail transit as well. Increase the frequency or availability of service, and more people will show up to use it.

So, Toronto is eventually going to need to get significantly more clever at encouraging congestion-reducing behaviour. For example: Tokyo was (still is?) trying something on the Tozai Line called the "Off Peak Project" whereby commuters are incentivized to travel before typical peak hours. Do it 10 work days in a row, win a bowl of soba noodles.

I would be pretty supportive of off-peak fare discounts (gives lower income people the opportunity to travel at lower cost), and it should help with crowding at peak. A lot of transit investment is to meet peak demand so shifting demand off-peak makes room for more peak-period riders willing/able to pay full fare and make it more affordable to ride off-peak when we have latent capacity anyway.

 

[afransen]

Something we should keep in mind when discussing width is that the TR's walls are completely vertical, which maximizes interior space. The Metropolis trains Alstom built for Shanghai are 3.2m in width, but feel more cramped than the TR because it curves in at head height.

View attachment 275538
View attachment 275537


If we get 3.0m wide trains that also curve inwards, that's probably going to be a problem.

If there are seats along the perimeter where people can't stand anyway, does it really make a difference?

 

[Rainforest]

Whether it's fast or slow is another argument, and I actually wouldn't be too surprised if a chart showed future FW or EE were not as fast as the buses they replaced for portions of the day.

Maybe late in the evening, when the traffic is very light, the exclusive lanes won't matter much and the buses can actually run a bit faster than LRT because of some operational rules.

But during the AM and PM rush when it matters most, or even mid-day, LRTs in exclusive lanes will run a lot faster. Just because the buses get stuck in traffic and are crawling.

I had taken both the Eg West and Finch West buses quite a few times in the past, and know how they operate during the rush hours; that's no fun Haven't been much to Eg East, but assume the buses there aren't very different.

 

[warrens]

If there are seats along the perimeter where people can't stand anyway, does it really make a difference?

It's not about the seats, it's about capacity around the doors.

Angled siding reduces peak capacity at every door by a few people.

 

[slapped_chicken]

It's not about the seats, it's about capacity around the doors.

Angled siding reduces peak capacity at every door by a few people.

Yea, unless you're a midget like me most people will be unable to press up against the door completely to use that edge space (unlike on our current trains where you can become one with the entire door, one of my fav crush hour activities).

However that space can be made up if the carriage design allows for a lot of additional standing room by only allowing longitudinal seating along both sides (like in the photo).

OL trains appear to be shorter than our regular 6-car trains by a whole 38 metres, so to me, train length represents the largest variable that can be used to increase capacity. If OL trains are put together to be around the length of the regular subway trains, they can carry some number between 1000-1200 instead of the supposed 720-850 (in comparison to the rocket's capacity of 1462). Combined with it's proposed max frequency of 40 tph, theoretical throughput still would be less than Line 1 finished with ATC but more than present day Line 1.

ofc i'm just dreaming, i doubt there is a will to rough out 40 metres beyond current underground platforms unless i go there and dig it myself

 

[ARG1]

Yea, unless you're a midget like me most people will be unable to press up against the door completely to use that edge space (unlike on our current trains where you can become one with the entire door, one of my fav crush hour activities).

However that space can be made up if the carriage design allows for a lot of additional standing room by only allowing longitudinal seating along both sides (like in the photo).

OL trains appear to be shorter than our regular 6-car trains by a whole 38 metres, so to me, train length represents the largest variable that can be used to increase capacity. If OL trains are put together to be around the length of the regular subway trains, they can carry some number between 1000-1200 instead of the supposed 720-850 (in comparison to the rocket's capacity of 1462). Combined with it's proposed max frequency of 40 tph, theoretical throughput still would be less than Line 1 finished with ATC but more than present day Line 1.

ofc i'm just dreaming, i doubt there is a will to rough out 40 metres beyond current underground platforms

This is probably the part of the OL I'm the most worried about. The DRL was planned with 4 car TR trains like Sheppard sure, but they had knockout panels to extend to the standard 6. I really hope they at least leave some room for expansion.

 

[Coolstar]

 

[44 North]

Maybe late in the evening, when the traffic is very light, the exclusive lanes won't matter much and the buses can actually run a bit faster than LRT because of some operational rules.

But during the AM and PM rush when it matters most, or even mid-day, LRTs in exclusive lanes will run a lot faster. Just because the buses get stuck in traffic and are crawling.

I had taken both the Eg West and Finch West buses quite a few times in the past, and know how they operate during the rush hours; that's no fun Haven't been much to Eg East, but assume the buses there aren't very different.

Oh definitely. Was sort of referring to off *off* peak that the current bus could potentially overtake any LRT line. Doesn't matter though, even if they had zero signal priority LRT lines on some of the suburban 416's corridors are long time coming and would be a huge improvement. More capacity, nicer ride, induces people to leave the car at home. Sort of a shame it's taken this long to get to this point.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yea, unless you're a midget like me most people will be unable to press up against the door completely to use that edge space (unlike on our current trains where you can become one with the entire door, one of my fav crush hour activities).

However that space can be made up if the carriage design allows for a lot of additional standing room by only allowing longitudinal seating along both sides (like in the photo).

OL trains appear to be shorter than our regular 6-car trains by a whole 38 metres, so to me, train length represents the largest variable that can be used to increase capacity. If OL trains are put together to be around the length of the regular subway trains, they can carry some number between 1000-1200 instead of the supposed 720-850 (in comparison to the rocket's capacity of 1462). Combined with it's proposed max frequency of 40 tph, theoretical throughput still would be less than Line 1 finished with ATC but more than present day Line 1.

ofc i'm just dreaming, i doubt there is a will to rough out 40 metres beyond current underground platforms unless i go there and dig it myself

Longer trains means that the trains will spend more times switching at crossover tracks, which means lower train frequency. 40 tph would likely not be achievable with trains of that length, however that would certainly be offset by the increase in vehicle capacity. Just something to keep in mind.

Before moving to longer trains, I would suggest wider trains. Boring wider tunnels doesn't cost a significant amount of money, compared to building longer station boxes.