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

[M II A II R II K]

Perhaps the Scarborough wing of Line 2 can be split off from it and parallel the GO route south of Danforth to Gerrard station and add a GO station there, and then continue west along Gerrard to Dundas station and St. Patrick. But not have stops at every bus route south of Danforth, that's already covered on Danforth.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Dont bother with @TheTigerMaster, he's ideologically made up his mind that a subway system from the 1940's technology is better, and is emotionally invested in it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me.

I have nothing wrong with the technological choices in the Ontario Line. The OL is set to become the most "advanced" rapid transit line this side of the Atlantic, and that's a fantastic accomplishment.

I've even advocated for building additional rapid transit lines using the same general technological "blueprint" introduced by the Ontario Line (elevation, platform screen doors, shorter cars for greater maneuverability, ATO, etc..). I want to see a line on Dundas to Etobicoke using the Ontario Line standard. Heck, I've even suggested converting the Sheppard Line from that legacy 1940s technology (that same technology you claim I'm "emotionally invested" in), to the "Ontario Line standard", because it'll allow us greater flexibility, and because it's the only way I can view the Line 4 extension as viable (yes, it's my viewpoint that the 1940s technology you claim I love has screwed us over on Sheppard, leaving us with no clear path to an extension).

Heck, if money were no object (unfortunately it is) and if it wouldn't be enormously disruptive (unfortunately it would be), I'd convert Line 1 and Line 2 to the same technology as well.

It just needs to be higher capacity. That's it.

The Ontario Line is marvellously well designed in my opinion. It's sole, but critical deficiency is its capacity. It's literally my one and only complaint. Had this thing been built with more capacity, it would be damn near perfect in my mind. This has nothing to do with 1940s technology.

Heck, part of the reason I'm so particular about capacity is because a very long Ontario Line, say stretching from Markham to northern Etobicoke (forming a second "U" around Line 1) is far better suited to be the "backbone" of Toronto's rapid transit network than TTC Line 1, primarily due to better quality of service the OL will be able to provide, along with cost savings due to elevation (something not really possible with the legacy rolling stock). The OL will be faster, it will be more reliable, it will be cheaper (primarily due to elevation) and it will provide a better customer experience. But to do that it needs very high capacity, and it just doesn't have the capacity to support the far reaching extensions that I would've liked to see.

Fundamentally, I want the Ontario Line to be higher capacity because I want more of the Ontario Line. I want this thing to reach Markham. I want it to reach Rexdale. I don't want to see this line permanently stuck running between Sheppard and Exhibiton. It has so much more potential than that. But to reach that potential - to reach an ultimate length of 50+ kms - it needs capacity, and it needs a lot of it.

I hope this can help you understand where I'm coming from and my motivations.

 

[ARG1]

Dont bother with @TheTigerMaster, he's ideologically made up his mind that a subway system from the 1940's technology is better, and is emotionally invested in it, so there's no changing his mind. It's a lost cause. He has spent hundreds of posts, along with @syn continually arguing the same points over and over on this thread.

@TheTigerMaster is fine. I agree though that @syn has completely lost it.

We’re splitting hairs here. Line 1’s “capacity” prior to ATO was 28,000 pphpd, however ridership well in excess of 30,000 pphpd had been observed. I really don’t care to argue about 1 or 2 thousand pax per hour.

My point here is that I’m sure none of us would’ve gone back to 1940 and tell them to slash the capacity of Line 1 to save money. No, what we would’ve done is told them to build Line 1 to accommodate future employment and population growth, along with ridership from future extensions. Which, fortunately, is exactly what they did. Hats off to them.

The capacity of Line 1 was 28000 if you take into account the Toronto Rockets, which were specifically designed to offer a lot more capacity through innovations like flip up seats an open gangways. While on the surface these improvements might seem small, when you're taking into account the smaller amount of room available in those older series of cars, the capacity becomes something close to 26k PPHPD. At this point we are pushing numbers that are SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than what the Ontario Line is getting. Don't forget as well that the Ontario Line is being built at the same time as GO RER and a ton of other projects - the amount of heavy lifting that the Ontario Line has to do compared to the amount of heavy lifting that the Yonge Line was meant to do is night and day and is really uncomparable.

 

[EnviroTO]

Dont bother with @TheTigerMaster, he's ideologically made up his mind that a subway system from the 1940's technology is better, and is emotionally invested in it, so there's no changing his mind. It's a lost cause. He has spent hundreds of posts, along with @syn continually arguing the same points over and over on this thread.

Platform length and capacity per train are not technological innovations. It is like bus vs car... yes, you can have technical innovations to improve the capacity and desirability of the car+road equation (i.e. self driving cars, electric cars, faster speeds, moving platforms and other things to reduce the impacts of dwell time... but you would still be choosing car over bus and bus can also have all those technological innovations so it could always be better for capacity. Perhaps it is like internet speed and one person is talking about actual bandwidth, and the other person is talking about how with modern compression you don't need the same bandwidth. The reality is that changes in technological advancement can be applied easily but improvements on physical constraints cannot.

If exact same technology, whatever the Ontario Line uses as it hasn't fully been said what the technology is, was used on Line 1 and the vehicles made use of the length of the platform and the width of the tunnel... it would carry more passengers than the Ontario Line... and these are tunnels and stations built 50+ years ago.

 

[ARG1]

Platform length and capacity per train are not technological innovations. It is like bus vs car... yes, you can have technical innovations to improve the capacity and desirability of the car+road equation (i.e. self driving cars, electric cars, faster speeds, moving platforms and other things to reduce the impacts of dwell time... but you would still be choosing car over bus and bus can also have all those technological innovations so it could always be better for capacity. Perhaps it is like internet speed and one person is talking about actual bandwidth, and the other person is talking about how with modern compression you don't need the same bandwidth. The reality is that changes in technological advancement can be applied easily but improvements on physical constraints cannot.

If exact same technology, whatever the Ontario Line uses as it hasn't fully been said what the technology is, was used on Line 1 and the vehicles made use of the length of the platform and the width of the tunnel... it would carry more passengers than the Ontario Line... and these are tunnels and stations built 50+ years ago.

Except it is. The ability to safely run trains every 90s is something that wasn't really that possible back when line 1 was opened (unless you counted having all of the trains run back to back like a conga line as was done in NYC when standards were lower). The length of a train needed to fulfill a specific capacity quota today is literally half of what it was back in the 1950s.

 

[syn]

You're making a lot of assumptions about myself. I have nothing wrong with the technological choices in the Ontario Line. The OL is set to become the most "advanced" rapid transit line this side of the Atlantic, and that's a fantastic accomplishment.

I've even advocated for building additional rapid transit lines using the same general technological "blueprint" introduced by the Ontario Line (elevation, platform screen doors, shorter cars for greater maneuverability, ATO, etc..). I want to see a line on Dundas to Etobicoke using the Ontario Line standard. Heck, I've even suggested converting the Sheppard Line from that legacy 1940s technology (that same technology you claim I'm "emotionally invested" in), to the "Ontario Line standard", because it'll allow us greater flexibility, and because it's the only way I can view the Line 4 extension as viable (yes, it's my viewpoint that the 1940s technology you claim I love has screwed us over on Sheppard, leaving us with no clear path to an extension).

Heck, if money were no object (unfortunately it is) and if it wouldn't be enormously disruptive (unfortunately it would be), I'd convert Line 1 and Line 2 to the same technology as well.

It just needs to be higher capacity. That's it.

The Ontario Line is marvellously well designed in my opinion. It's sole, but critical deficiency is its capacity. It's literally my one and only complaint. Had this thing been built with more capacity, it would be damn near perfect in my mind. This has nothing to do with 1940s technology.

Heck, part of the reason I'm so particular about capacity is because a very long Ontario Line, say stretching from Markham to northern Etobicoke (forming a second "U" around Line 1) is far better suited to be the "backbone" of Toronto's rapid transit network than TTC Line 1, primarily due to better quality of service the OL will be able to provide, along with cost savings due to elevation (something not really possible with the legacy rolling stock). The OL will be faster, it will be more reliable, it will be cheaper (primarily due to elevation) and it will provide a better customer experience. But to do that it needs very high capacity, and it just doesn't have the capacity to support the far reaching extensions that I would've liked to see.

Fundamentally, I want the Ontario Line to be higher capacity because I want more of the Ontario Line. I want this thing to reach Markham. I want it to reach Rexdale. I don't want to see this line permanently stuck running between Sheppard and Exhibiton. It has so much more potential than that. But to reach that potential it needs capacity, and a lot of it.

I hope this can help you understand where I'm coming from and my motivations.

Great post. I would say this sums up my take as well.

I have no problem with the Ontario Line at all, except for an implementation that significantly limits capacity for a future that's coming much sooner than most of us think.

Speaking for myself I've never suggested I'm a fan of only using 1940s technology so I have no idea where that's coming from lol.

I don't recall any complaints in the SSE nor YNSE threads about the age of the technology being used.

Platform length and capacity per train are not technological innovations. It is like bus vs car... yes, you can have technical innovations to improve the capacity and desirability of the car+road equation (i.e. self driving cars, electric cars, faster speeds, moving platforms and other things to reduce the impacts of dwell time... but you would still be choosing car over bus and bus can also have all those technological innovations so it could always be better for capacity. Perhaps it is like internet speed and one person is talking about actual bandwidth, and the other person is talking about how with modern compression you don't need the same bandwidth. The reality is that changes in technological advancement can be applied easily but improvements on physical constraints cannot.

If exact same technology, whatever the Ontario Line uses as it hasn't fully been said what the technology is, was used on Line 1 and the vehicles made use of the length of the platform and the width of the tunnel... it would carry more passengers than the Ontario Line... and these are tunnels and stations built 50+ years ago.

I don't understand why there's so much resistance to this.

Even the numbers provided directly by Metrolinx demonstrate a much lower capacity line than was originally planned, something that has nothing to do with old vs new technology.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Platform length and capacity per train are not technological innovations. It is like bus vs car... yes, you can have technical innovations to improve the capacity and desirability of the car+road equation (i.e. self driving cars, electric cars, faster speeds, moving platforms and other things to reduce the impacts of dwell time... but you would still be choosing car over bus and bus can also have all those technological innovations so it could always be better for capacity. Perhaps it is like internet speed and one person is talking about actual bandwidth, and the other person is talking about how with modern compression you don't need the same bandwidth. The reality is that changes in technological advancement can be applied easily but improvements on physical constraints cannot.

If exact same technology, whatever the Ontario Line uses as it hasn't fully been said what the technology is, was used on Line 1 and the vehicles made use of the length of the platform and the width of the tunnel... it would carry more passengers than the Ontario Line... and these are tunnels and stations built 50+ years ago.

Ha. I really, really, really enjoy this analogy using bandwidth and compression algorithms. It's brilliant. Gosh I hope its not so esoteric as to go over most of our heads, but I get the impression most of us here are pretty technologically inclined.

So in the case of rapid transit, bandwidth, as the name implies, is related to the physical size of the infrastructure. The literal length and widths of the trains that the infrasucture can permit. Compression algorithms would be the various tricks we can use to more efficiently move people in that limited space -- this would be things like ATO, platform screen doors, open gangways, removing seats, etc...

In computer networking, compression algorithms can help you transmit in more useful information given bandwidth restrictions, but if you want to move the most data at the highest quality, more bandwidth is always best. Transit infrastructure works the same way. Funny how that works.

Except it is. The ability to safely run trains every 90s is something that wasn't really that possible back when line 1 was opened (unless you counted having all of the trains run back to back like a conga line as was done in NYC when standards were lower). The length of a train needed to fulfill a specific capacity quota today is literally half of what it was back in the 1950s.

We tend to get bogged down in debates over various technological definitions, but I really don't think the distinction between technology and sizing matters. Physical constraints (eg, the literal sizing of the infrastructure) will dictate various design requirements (eg, does the line have ATO, screen doors, etc...) and vice versa.

At the end of the day, the Ontario Line's design isn't a "technology", it's just a series of design decisions. It's not as if longer trains, or removing platform screen doors would turn the OL into a radically different "technology" (using that term very loosely).

 

[ARG1]

We tend to get bogged down in debates over various technological definitions, but I really don't think the distinction between technology and sizing matters. Physical constraints (eg, the literal sizing of the infrastructure) will dictate various design requirements (eg, does the line have ATO, screen doors, etc...) and vice versa.

At the end of the day, the Ontario Line's design isn't a "technology", it's just a series of design decisions. It's not as if longer trains, or removing platform screen doors would turn the OL into a radically different "technology" (using that term very loosely) than it is now.

When I say "technology", I'm not referring to the overall holistic technology of the line, but instead the technologies with which the line is being and designed with. Full automation is a different technology than what was available for the Yonge line back in '54. Sure we can get something close today on that line as well, but my point was to highlight how the introduction of new low level technologies allow us to get what we previously could get for much cheaper.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I mean what are we really saying here, that the OL should have been 1 train car longer with 120m platforms?

I understand concerns about capacity, and yes, the OL will likely eventually run over in the distant future. It would likely eventually run over in a slightly more distant future if it has been built with an extra train car or two of length as well though.

The question from a project justification standpoint is more of an accounting game.

Take how much extra cost you incur by adding that capacity (making all platforms 20% longer, introducing more pedestrian circulation space, increasing the size of the yard to store the trains, etc.), multiply it by all possible extensions which will be "stuck" with that capacity, despite it only being needed between East Harbour and Queen, and get your additional capital cost.

Take that cost, when that capacity is not expected to be required for 30-40 years, Then discount it for the period in which it is expected to sit idle and unused. What that rate is, I don't really know, but an extra couple billion sitting unused for decades is going to be very, very expensive once you discount the time that capital is just sitting there, depreciating. Never mind the fact that it would increase operating and maintenance costs, even if you are only running 100m trains and not using the extra 20m of platform space.

Then calculate how much that extra spent capital today delays the need for a third subway line. If we are assuming that the line will grow from 15,000PPHD on opening day to 30k in, say, 2060 (accounting for eventual extensions increasing passenger loads), maybe it gives you an extra 10-20 years of life of the line without needing the third subway line.

Now what's cheaper - spending a couple billion up front in 2022 to delay the third line need from 2060 to, say, 2080, and letting that capital sit dead in the water for 40 years until it's needed, only for it to be 'useful' for 20 years before the third line is needed anyway, or use that capital today on other, better returns on investment (say, other transit improvements that can actually deliver results today), and instead focusing transit capital in 2060 to build that third subway line then, delivering the benefits of a third line 20 years earlier.

Almost nothing in capitalism is built for 100's of years of growth potential. There's a reason for that.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I mean what are we really saying here, that the OL should have been 1 train car longer with 120m platforms?

I understand concerns about capacity, and yes, the OL will likely eventually run over in the distant future. It would likely eventually run over in a slightly more distant future if it has been built with an extra train car or two of length as well though.

The question from a project justification standpoint is more of an accounting game.

Take how much extra cost you incur by adding that capacity (making all platforms 20% longer, introducing more pedestrian circulation space, increasing the size of the yard to store the trains, etc.), multiply it by all possible extensions which will be "stuck" with that capacity, despite it only being needed between East Harbour and Queen, and get your additional capital cost.

Take that cost, when that capacity is not expected to be required for 30-40 years, Then discount it for the period in which it is expected to sit idle and unused. What that rate is, I don't really know, but an extra couple billion sitting unused for decades is going to be very, very expensive once you discount the time that capital is just sitting there, depreciating. Never mind the fact that it would increase operating and maintenance costs, even if you are only running 100m trains and not using the extra 20m of platform space.

Then calculate how much that extra spent capital today delays the need for a third subway line. If we are assuming that the line will grow from 15,000PPHD on opening day to 30k in, say, 2060 (accounting for eventual extensions increasing passenger loads), maybe it gives you an extra 10-20 years of life of the line without needing the third subway line.

Now what's cheaper - spending a couple billion up front in 2022 to delay the third line need from 2060 to, say, 2080, and letting that capital sit dead in the water for 40 years until it's needed, only for it to be 'useful' for 20 years before the third line is needed anyway, or use that capital today on other, better returns on investment (say, other transit improvements that can actually deliver results today), and instead focusing transit capital in 2060 to build that third subway line then, delivering the benefits of a third line 20 years earlier.

Almost nothing in capitalism is built for 100's of years of growth potential. There's a reason for that.

The big problem here is that we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know how long it would've taken for these extensions that would've consumed the OL's capacity to materialize.

Let's use the presumed extension to Markham as an example. The Ontario Line is elevated and very maneuverable, so the extension to Markham could have been built rather quickly and affordably if the OL had the capacity. There's no reason why it couldn't have been built for maybe less than $5 Billion and operational by 2040. However, we don't know if that would've happened. Maybe it woudn't have been extended for a century.

In a situation where the OL isn't extended north for a century, would all this extra capacity make financial sense? No, of course not. But in a situation where it was extended north by 2040, would building extra capacity today make sense? Of course.

In my mind, one of the big issues with the Ontario Line is that Metrolinx seemingly doesn't have any kind of long term vision or plan for the future of the project. They've designed this thing to go from Exhibiton to Eglinton, and the current design is excellent if that's all it's going to do. But they haven't talked at all about any plans beyond that.

I would contrast the planning of the Ontario Line to the planning of the original Toronto Subway. The original planners of the Toronto Subway engaged in a great deal of long term planning. They knew Line 1 would need to be extended far beyond Eglinton and into North York, and they built the capacity necessary. They knew that it needed to be able to handle transfers from the future Line 2, and also built in the capacity to handle that. These guys are had an immense amount of foresight, and to this day we reap benefits from it.

Fundamentally, any new rapid transit line must consider any possible extensions in its original plan. The original Ontario Line plan should've included future potential routing, the potential demand for those routes, and a very rough timeline of when those routes would be built and how much it would cost. That should have then informed the technical requirements of the original segment of the Ontario Line, such that those extensions can be easily built when the time comes. I've seen absolutely no evidence of this foresight from Metrolinx.

The Ontario Line feels like a project that's designed for Toronto of 2031, and only for Toronto of 2031. And that's a shame. I wish Metrolinx had looked a bit into the future when designing this thing.

 

[tsm1072]

In my mind, one of the big issues with the Ontario Line is that Metrolinx seemingly doesn't have any kind of long term vision or plan for the future of the project. They've designed this thing to go from Exhibiton to Eglinton, and the current design is excellent if that's all it's going to do. But they haven't talked at all about any plans beyond that.

I'm wondering if there is planning, it just isn't public. Part of Metrolinx's reasons for lack of transparency is due to media and resident backlash. If you put out documents stating a future elevated extension North along Don Mills, or future at grade extension west alongside Parkdale, you have whole new groups of residents protesting this line or media outlets slamming it. Alternatively you can have people demanding the extensions are built immediately and suddenly the cost will skyrocket. I'm not saying that is a good practice, but I can understand that they want to focus on the current line and not generate publicity about extensions until construction is underway.

I don't think the Ontario Line design came from Ford demanding something different than the relief line, clearly some people at metrolinx wanted to integrate the network better and push for new technology. I have to imagine part of the push was to make extensions cheap and easy, as evidenced by how the two ends terminate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a working draft of a Northern extension somewhere inside the metrolinx offices just waiting for official release when the time is right.

 

[afransen]

I'm sure it exists. Maybe the problem is they don't share it because only transit nerds would find it interesting. I think we could do a better job planning the city if we knew what the transit roadmap was, and I think the public has a right to know. It might mitigate the need for consultation of the plans are long standing when they decide to proceed with a project.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm wondering if there is planning, it just isn't public. Part of Metrolinx's reasons for lack of transparency is due to media and resident backlash. If you put out documents stating a future elevated extension North along Don Mills, or future at grade extension west alongside Parkdale, you have whole new groups of residents protesting this line or media outlets slamming it. Alternatively you can have people demanding the extensions are built immediately and suddenly the cost will skyrocket. I'm not saying that is a good practice, but I can understand that they want to focus on the current line and not generate publicity about extensions until construction is underway.

I don't think the Ontario Line design came from Ford demanding something different than the relief line, clearly some people at metrolinx wanted to integrate the network better and push for new technology. I have to imagine part of the push was to make extensions cheap and easy, as evidenced by how the two ends terminate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a working draft of a Northern extension somewhere inside the metrolinx offices just waiting for official release when the time is right.

Yeah, I feel like that's definitely a possibility. And I hope that's the situation. However allow me to baselessly speculate.

Metrolinx released this map of their environmental study areas for the Ontario Line. I found this map very interesting, because it's far been the only glimpse of how Metrolinx might view the future of this line (at least as far as I've seen).

Notice that the study area around Exhibiton extends all the way north to King and Dufferin (500 metres north of Lakeshore West). To me this strongly suggests that MX was, at least at one point, looking at extending the line north along Dufferin.

However this also concerned me because the design of Exhibition Station doesn't allow any way for the line to curve north to get under Dufferin Street. So why are they studying the environmental impact of a subway under King and Dufferin, if they clearly haven't designed the line to reach that location?

The cynical take is that perhaps some elements within Metrolinx want this line to go north along Dufferin in a future stage, but for whatever reason Exhibiton Station wasn't planned to accommodate that, and that it just might not be possible anymore. To get the subway under Dufferin Street, Exhibiton Station would've have to been built underground, which would've increased costs and eliminate the possibility of cross-platform transfers. This would be indicative of the lack of planning for future extensions I was talking about in my previous post. I really wouldn't be surprised if things like this slipped through the cracks in the early days when MX was designing this thing at a fairly rushed pace.

The optimistic take is that perhaps they looked at a Dufferin alignment, decided it wasn't worth it, and any western extensions would go somewhere else. But I really can't wrap my head around what better alignments there would be. Dufferin Street is one of the busiest and most congested bus routes in the city; few other streets are more deserving of a subway line. Also, if that were the case, you'd expect the environmental study area to extend west of Dufferin along the rail corridor (which is the only other direction this line could be extended)

Even putting aside the environmental map, it concerns me that Exhibition doesn't seem to have been designed with the most obvious extension route in mind. I really hope there is some kind of rock solid plan for the western extension behind the scenes. If Metrolinx genuinely does not have a plan for a western extension, we've essentially eliminated any possibility of a subway on Dufferin (at least without expensive reconstruction). But that's only if they don't have a plan.

As I said though, this is just speculation. I'm trying to connect the dots based on what little breadcrumbs we've been given.

 

[afransen]

If they start diving right after Exhibition, could they not get to Dufferin? A King station might have to be west of Dufferin... On the other hand, I feel like you could totally just put in an elevated line on the west side of Dufferin. Just acquire all the properties on that side of the street. I know that would be too much of a community impact, but the whole street would get redeveloped anyway.

Max grade for Ontario Line is 4.5%.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

However this also concerned me because the design of Exhibition Station doesn't allow any way for the line to curve north to get under Dufferin Street. So why are they studying the environmental impact of a subway under King and Dufferin, if they clearly haven't designed the line to reach that location?

The cynical take is that perhaps some elements within Metrolinx want this line to go north along Dufferin in a future stage, but for whatever reason Exhibiton Station wasn't planned to accommodate that, and that it just might not be possible anymore. To get the subway under Dufferin Street, Exhibiton Station would've have to been built underground, which would've increased costs and eliminate the possibility of cross-platform transfers. This would be indicative of the lack of planning for future extensions I was talking about in my previous post. I really wouldn't be surprised if things like this slipped through the cracks in the early days when MX was designing this thing at a fairly rushed pace.

The optimistic take is that perhaps they looked at a Dufferin alignment, decided it wasn't worth it, and any western extensions would go somewhere else. But I really can't wrap my head around what better alignments there would be. Dufferin Street is one of the busiest and most congested bus routes in the city; few other streets are more deserving of a subway line. Also, if that were the case, you'd expect the environmental study area to extend west of Dufferin along the rail corridor (which is the only other direction this line could be extended)

And I suppose the ultra optimistic take is that maybe Metrolinx is fine with the idea of rebuilding Exhibiton station whenever it comes time to extend the Ontario Line west.

I could image a scenario where a new Ontario Line station platform is mined under the existing Exhibiton Station, and then connected to the Ontario Line running tracks a few hundred metres to the east.

Yes, we would have to abandon the "existing" Ontario Line platform at the station, but the Exhibition Ontario Line station is a fairly inexpensive (I'd imagine), so it's not like we'd be writing off a huge investment. And in the meanwhile, passengers would benefit from cross-platform transfers until we're ready to extend the line west.