[kaptrice]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

 

[afransen]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

"Luckily" we won't be seeing GO Expansion coming to fruition on the lines intersection Line 5 until 2040 or later.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway, even the double doors. One need only go ride on them - in Waterloo or Edmonton or elsewhere - to note that it's a bit trickier to get to and through the doors on them. Needless to say the problem gets worse if you have 160+ people to a vehicle, which the stated capacity is based on.
I can picture completion of the GO connections and service increases alleviating rather than worsening congestion on Eglinton, as people start to take shorter trips to the nearest downtown-bound line rather than schlepping crosstown to get to line 1.

You mean the current TTC subway cars. Compared with the original Gloucester subway cars, they are about the same.

 

[A 6264]

You mean the current TTC subway cars. Compared with the original Gloucester subway cars, they are about the same.
View attachment 658936

For goodness sakes... I've been enjoying the back-and-forth discussions, they are mostly cordial, and packed with useful information. But when one person says "The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway", and another "corrects" them by saying, "You mean the current TTC subway cars" (well obviously that's what they were talking about) and puts up a diagram of the original trains used from 1954 to 1990 ... well! Yes, I do realize later models had narrow doors as well, but they too were decommissioned long ago, and even though they were officially around until a decade ago, they only time I ever saw them since the year 2000 was when they were sitting on the sidings at the Davisville yard. As I remember it, new trains with doors twice as wide arrived in the 1980s, because the old door width was obviously inadequate. So what you're saying is, the latest train door width is no problem, because it's the same width as the 1950s standard which was considered no darn good by the 1980s. I think you're disproving the point you were trying to make.

 

[ThenWhat]

An interesting discussion about expected (in- or)sufficient capacity on ELRT. My own criterion of sufficient capacity is whether there is a seat for me when I go more than two stops. I realize this is not scientific enough, so here is a more precise question for those who feel confident enough to make predictions:
What will the ridership numbers on Eglinton LRT be one year after the opening date? Say the peak number of passengers per hour, on a weekday. If you think you have a good idea, just post your number here. We'll come back in (hopefully) the fall of 2026 and see how close you were.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

For goodness sakes... I've been enjoying the back-and-forth discussions, they are mostly cordial, and packed with useful information. But when one person says "The doors on the LRVs are also rather narrower than those on the subway", and another "corrects" them by saying, "You mean the current TTC subway cars" (well obviously that's what they were talking about) and puts up a diagram of the original trains used from 1954 to 1990 ... well! Yes, I do realize later models had narrow doors as well, but they too were decommissioned long ago, and even though they were officially around until a decade ago, they only time I ever saw them since the year 2000 was when they were sitting on the sidings at the Davisville yard. As I remember it, new trains with doors twice as wide arrived in the 1980s, because the old door width was obviously inadequate. So what you're saying is, the latest train door width is no problem, because it's the same width as the 1950s standard which was considered no darn good by the 1980s. I think you're disproving the point you were trying to make.

Which means that the doors could and should change with any newer replacement light rail vehicles, over time. Likely with longer cars that would allow for wider doors.

 

[Civdis]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find an answer. Will all vehicles run the full distance of the line or will some turn back at the end of the underground section?

 

[A 6264]

Which means that the doors could and should change with any newer replacement light rail vehicles, over time. Likely with longer cars that would allow for wider doors.

I always figured the reason they made doors wider on subways, is there are always doofuses blocking the doorways, so the TTC made it so they could do that, and other people could still get in and out. People block the doors regardless of how full the train is. Some people will stand in the doorway of a nearly empty train, and not just for 2 stops, they will stand there for a long trip, don't ask me why. And even now, I've seen groups of 4 or more people blocking an entire doorway, just because there's room for them to do so. If all this is the reason for wider doors, then it would be wrong to put narrow doors on now, and wider doors later.

Then again, if the interiors of these new trains are like modern streetcars, they will not be so inviting to standing in doorways in the same way subway cars are, so perhaps it's okay for the doors to be narrow.

 

[Jonny5]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find an answer. Will all vehicles run the full distance of the line or will some turn back at the end of the underground section?

The service design for day #1 is end to end, but It is set up so a short turn service can be possible, though that was implemented more for emergency purposes, not a scheduled service, but there is an open possibility which I'm sure they will review to change the service design based on the actual time and demand analytics once it actually starts running, and then they could implement a scheduled short turn service, especially on weekends and late evenings.

 

[Steve X]

The service design for day #1 is end to end, but It is set up so a short turn service can be possible, though that was implemented more for emergency purposes, not a scheduled service, but there is an open possibility which I'm sure they will review to change the service design based on the actual time and demand analytics once it actually starts running, and then they could implement a scheduled short turn service, especially on weekends and late evenings.

I really intrigue to know if the TTC/ML service agreement allows TTC to even run service based on what hey see fit. We already heard years ago they want TTC to operate the maximum service to make it look good but TTC has to fund the operating cost.

 

[JasonParis]

Shit brown and baby blue? Not the colour combination I would have chosen, unless I want patrons to think of POOPY DIAPERS.

Watched it, there's a lot that is objectionable.

1. David Miller spent a lot of time talking about how Transit City was based off "real data" and wasn't based off political boundaries. Yes, because somehow real data led to the conclusion that the best way to turn Toronto into a car-free city, is to replace busses with higher capacity busses that are barely faster, and somehow "real data" led them to unilaterally use LRTs even on corridors where they later found out it was infeasible to do so.

He also made his ongoing assertion that the Ontario Line makes no sense west of Queen. It's almost like he was the Mayor from a bygone era of Toronto... oh wait!

 

[Mind_the_gap]

I always figured the reason they made doors wider on subways, is there are always doofuses blocking the doorways, [...]

It was never about the "doofuses" blocking the doorway. The first wide-door trains were the T1s ordered in '92, delivered in '95-2001, unless you count the Tokyo Rose garbage train made in '68.

Source

Keep in mind, Toronto was a much smaller city even in the '90s - the narrower doors used to suffice. This is why we got rid 3+2 seating on H1s. People seemed to be more considerate too.

This is also why we created a little space for leaning passengers by the doors on TRs, unlike the T1s.

Source

If someone's truly blocking the door, that has to do with selfishness or ignorance...

The Paris MP14 trains even have flip-down seats at the doorways.

Source

This city was so different before we got crowded with condo towers everywhere.

Sorry to go off-topic.

 

[nfitz]

We do know that MX will be ordering more LRVs for the Eglinton West Extension. I’d hope that at the same time, they order additional LRVs to make all trains on the line 3-LRV trains. Take advantage of a larger order etc. For what it’s worth, many of the L5W videos show 3-car trains.

I'd hope that they observe what ridership actually looks like before ordering additional cars. An option would make sense. And I wouldn't be surprised if Waterloo picks up another two or three, while there is a production line running.

 

[Reecemartin]

I'd hope that they observe what ridership actually looks like before ordering additional cars. An option would make sense. And I wouldn't be surprised if Waterloo picks up another two or three, while there is a production line running.

Irregardless of whether you really think capacity is going to be sufficient despite all the things I said, it's clearly better to have too many cars than too few. Mix shuffling things around for maintenance easier and means you can have more trains available if there's a particularly significant event that requires larger than normal capacity.

 

[nfitz]

Irregardless of whether you really think capacity is going to be sufficient despite all the things I said, it's clearly better to have too many cars than too few.

No - you don't want too many extra cars. Especially when they've been planning additional phases from day one, with plenty of opportunities to buy extra vehicles if the passenger demand is much much higher than estimated.