News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.9K     0 
Flexity Freedom (Eglinton)

ModuelsWidthLengthHeightFixed seatsFlip up SeatsADA/Multi-useStandeesMax Capacity
32.65m
20 m
3.6m
344279 (6 pass./m²)135
52.65m30.8 m3.6m5684130 (6 pass./m²)251


Source:
http://98.141.86.152/adwheel2012/entries/3988053/464008.FlexityFreedom_Brochurelowres.pdf

Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar)
ModuelsWidthLengthHeightSeatsStandeesMax capacity
52.54 m30.20 m3.84 m70181***251

*** = not sure how the TTC came up with that number.
Source:
http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/New_Streetcars/Meet_Your_New_Ride/index.jsp

TypeNumber of CarsCar LengthCar WidthCar HeightTrain LengthSeatsStandeesMax capacity
ICS
413 m2.48 m?52 m120 (30 per car)300 (75 per car)???
420?
T-1
423 m3.14 m3.6592 m264 (66 per car)694 (165-182 per car)??
958?
623 m3.14 m3.65138 m396 (66 per car)1058 (165-182 per car)??
1454?
Toronto Rocket
623 m3.14 m?138 m390 (64-68 per car)1058 (165-182 per car) - 6 pass./m²
1448


390 is my best guess, i cant figure out how many A, B and C cars there are per train. I'm also not sure how many can stand on T-1, so those numbers are a guess.
Source:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transp...ountry=ca&f-segment=all&f-type=all&f-name=all
http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/New_Vehicles/New_Subway_Train/index.jsp
http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Service_Summary_2009_10_18.pdf (page 71)

Since the LRT can be a max of 3 units together, that makes the max of Eglinton Crosstown line 750 max.
 
Last edited:
howl said:
Research much?
Click to expand...
You can reference any fiction out there on the Internet. If TTC can only fit 70+ people on an 18-metre artic, then how do you fit 200 people (let alone 270 people in some markets) in an 18-metre artic. These references are clearly fiction. It's not like they are saying 100, which maybe you could crunch in. But 200. It's complete and utter BS.

Similarly, the numbers for the Flexity from Bombardier appear to be fictional. Oh my, Bombardier lies - is anyone surprised?
 
ehlow said:
Here are the TTC crowding standards:

https://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/Crowding _Standards 2014.pdf
Click to expand...
Which to be fair aren't crush loads. Though once you exceed the peak loud, the route capacity drops, because the streetcar spends forever loading and unloading. The ALRV crush load is 205 as reported by the TTC. Which I also find hard to believe. Though if you can only crush 205 in a 23-metre streecar, (and 132 in 15-metre streetcar). How do you get 200 in an 18-metre bus?

Based on those numbers, the 250 crush load for the 30-metre Flexities does start to look a bit more reasonable. But what I'm really questioning is the 200 (let alone 270!) crush load for an 18-metre bus!

Either way, you can't use these numbers for planning purposes. Once you cross the peak load, it goes to hell. 77 for an 18-metre articulated bus. if 130 for a TTC Flexity, then can't be more than 150 for a Transit City Flexity ... so 450 for a train.

If Metrolinx are using 750 for a 3-car 90-metre train, then they've completely screwed up. (edit - the Crosstown website indicates that the capacity of a 3-car train is 490, with 163 in each car ... a bit higher than 150 estimated, but certainly not the 250 mentioned above).

The TTC 4-car 92-metre subway trains are much wider (3.14 metres versus 2.65 for the Transit City Flexity) and they only have a peak capacity of 670! A better comparison are the 50.8-metre long 2.49-metre wide SRT trains that hold 220 - extend that to 90 metres and you have 390 people per train. So based on that, a lot closer to 390 than 670.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
The TTC 4-car 92-metre subway trains are much wider (3.14 metres versus 2.65 for the Transit City Flexity) and they only have a peak capacity of 670! A better comparison are the 50.8-metre long 2.49-metre wide SRT trains that hold 220 - extend that to 90 metres and you have 390 people per train. So based on that, a lot closer to 390 than 670.
Click to expand...

I updated last post to make it more readable and i added more information. I also fixed a mistake i made, i added the LRT Max capacity wrong, it should be right now. I agree with you that 250 seems way too much for the LRT and street cars.
 
Last edited:
howl said:
Research much?
Click to expand...

In certain markets you can regularly fit 2500 people on a Toronto Rocket train. This isn't certain markets, this is the Toronto market.

Capacity standards for Toronto need to be designed for what Torontonians will actually do. We almost never achieve what manufacturers claim is a crush load.
 
Last edited:
howl said:
The bus is 24m long. With it's normal seating layout it has capacity of 165 people and a crush load of 200.
Click to expand...
Makes a bit more sense, but that's still high for peak capacity. 130 for a 23-metre streetcar but 165 for a 24-metre bus? Crush loading seems a bit high too, given the limitations of buses versus streetcars.

Though the biggest question is why are you basing costs on 24-metre buses? Have you ever seen a 24-metre bus anywhere in the GTA? Or anywhere at all for that matter.

And why are you basing the number of buses or LRTs you need on crush capacity rather than peak capacity?
 
rbt said:
In certain markets you can regularly fit 2500 people on a Toronto Rocket train. This isn't certain markets, this is the Toronto market.

Capacity standards for Toronto need to be designed for what Torontonians will actually do. We almost never achieve what manufacturers claim is a crush load.
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't understand the discussion. We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned. We are discussing the theoretical maximum number of people you could possibly get on a bus in order to compare the best-case-scenario operation costs across different technologies.
 
howl said:
Apparently you don't understand the discussion. We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned. We are discussing the theoretical maximum number of people you could possibly get on a bus in order to compare the best-case-scenario operation costs across different technologies.
Click to expand...
If you want theoretical maximums, then you need peak load, not crush load - as the entire system breaks down then, as each vehicle spends forever at each stop with people trying to get out of (and into) vehicles. Crush loads occur in situations like subway breakdowns when 100s of replacement buses are in use ... at which point you can walk faster than the buses.
 
howl said:
Apparently you don't understand the discussion. We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned. We are discussing the theoretical maximum number of people you could possibly get on a bus in order to compare the best-case-scenario operation costs across different technologies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's off-topic for both this thread and Urban Toronto as a whole as it is not applicable to any transit carrier in the GTA.

Also, the capacity of an unmodified 12m city bus is 229.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-people-crammed-on-a-bus-unmodified
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
Yeah, and it's off-topic for both this thread and Urban Toronto as a whole as it is not applicable to any transit carrier in the GTA.

Also, the capacity of an unmodified 12m city bus is 229.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-people-crammed-on-a-bus-unmodified
Click to expand...

It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.
 
howl said:
It's not off-topic at all. The question posed was about the operational cost delta between different technologies. Is it cheaper to operate a fleet of buses, an LRT system or a heavy rail system? If the TTC wanted to it could replace all its planned LRTs with Volvo 7500 bi-articulated buses and run them at crush load. If they did that it might save them a substantial amount of capital costs, but it would cost them a lot more on the operational cost side. On Eglinton that very calculation was done during the EA and the finding was LRT is the most cost-effective mode for this corridor.
Click to expand...

Howl, you just said this: "We're not discussing the Toronto market. The Toronto market was never mentioned."

Please make up your mind.

The numbers you are discussing are completely irrelevant to pretty much any carrier in North America. No agency in North America, including Mexico City or New York, achieves vendor quoted crush capacity.

Either the discussion uses realistic numbers for Toronto passengers, or it isn't applicable to Toronto. We have a very low discomfort threshold and will wait for the next vehicle long before vendor quoted crush capacity is reached.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top