[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.

 

[fanoftoronto]

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.

Apologies, but I'm trying to understand why you think the capacity is not sufficient with the current 2 vehicle trains.

Line 5 capacity models clearly state that the highest capacity required is around 5,500 pphpd at 2031. There isn't any reason to suspect that this number is incorrect. 5,500 is also almost triple what the current 34 bus carries on Eglinton. In any case theoretical maximum capacity with the current 2 car trains is around 10,000 pphpd, almost double the expected demand.

The easiest comparison is the eastern portion of Line 2. Line 2 has a theoretical maximum of around 23,000 pphpd and is close to hitting this maximum during the morning rush. Line 2 has been operating for over 50 years with all the N-S feeder buses dropping passengers at it's station and yet not as busy as the Yonge side of Line 1. Are you under the impression that Line 5 will be similar to this shortly after opening?

You mention Canada Line being under estimated on usage, but do you have any Toronto based rapid transit projects with under estimated demand? Sheppard Subway, TYSSE, etc?

 

[Allandale25]

^ I could be wrong but I think part of Reece's point is that for Eglinton East more than just the 34 serves it. Would your calculation need to be adjusted then?

 

[fanoftoronto]

^ I could be wrong but I think part of Reece's point is that for Eglinton East more than just the 34 serves it. Would your calculation need to be adjusted then?

You're right, I mis-typed when I said the 34 bus has a capacity of 2,000 pphpd. According to the EA for the Crosstown from 2011, the maximum capacity for mixed traffic bus operation is 2,000. Meaning even in the areas of Eglinton East where there are multiple buses, the theoretical maximum is 2,000 pphpd. And that itself is pushing it as it'll be a bus every 1.5 minutes with 50 passengers per bus!

The LRV for Eglinton has a maximum crush load capacity of 251 per vehicle, meaning 502 per 2-vehicle trainset. Even being conservative and using a capacity of 400, we will only need 1 two-vehicle train per 4 minutes to meet the expected demand. Increasing this to one train ever 2:30 would yield a capacity of 9,600 pphpd which far exceeds the expected 5,400.

From the Crosstown EA from 2011:

My issues is that I hear a lot of speculation when saying that the expected 5,400 pphpd number is under-estimated and that the line is going to be at capacity very fast, but I don't see any actual evidence of that actually being the case. Has the City or TTC or Metrolinx updated their expected demand numbers?

From the datasheet for the Flexity Freedom:

And then there's the option of adding a 3rd vehicle to each train to increase capacity to very solid 14,400 at the same 2:30 interval. Granted, this might also need the City and the TTC to actually implement signal priority for Line 5. But if we're getting to that situation I think there is a lot of incentive for them to make that decision. Even now the strategy is that trains that are running behind schedule will be able to utilize transit signal priorit

My final point is that when we're getting close to the end of life of these LRVs, we should be looking at procuring slightly wider LRVs and looking to create gangways between the 3 cars to further increase capacity (like the TR vs the T1 subway trains).

I guess we're all going to have to wait for the line to open and run for a year or so before we can actually see what the actual real-world demand is going to be.

 

[smallspy]

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.

And who is supposed to pay for the storage and maintenance of them, nevermind their purchase?

Dan

 

[Reecemartin]

And who is supposed to pay for the storage and maintenance of them, nevermind their purchase?

Dan

The existing agreements between the TTC, Crosslinx, and Metrolinx have provisions that set out who pays for what - if like other agreements I've seen it will set this out even for the future extensions which were obviously conceived of before the first part of Line 5 got built and provisioned for to some degree.