I was comparing 6 pax/m^2 to 6 pax/m^2 based on existing documentation on the capacities for standardized metros and Bombardier Flexity Freedoms.
Internal dimensions in both cases. That is apples to apples.
I also never claimed 1,100 for any apples to apples comparison, so I am not sure where you are getting this strawman from.
You are free to break down exactly where I made a mistaken assumption to get those 6 pax/m^2 figures, but you guys didn't do that. Bringing up red herrings like 1,100 for Toronto Rocket with poorly calculated this or that, and without normalizing to a X pax/m^2 is not relevant or productive.
As a better hypothetical:
90 metres is a rough analogue of Eglinton and Hurontario's eventual train lengths: I'll take three (3) of 30 metre long cars 2.65 metres wide at 3 pax/m^2 which is more realistic.
3*30*2.65*3= 715.5
80*3*3= 720
^Ontario Line is 80 metres long, 3 metres wide, 3 pax/m^2 as well.
So a 90 metre long LRT vehicle (2.65 m wide) carries about the same amount of people as an 80 metre metro (3.0 m wide). However,
external dimensions are not conducive for calculating real world passenger capacities,
internal dimensions are.
In the real world, open gangways, thinner walls, higher capacity seating layouts etc. come into play. This is why the capacity gap swings in favour of a metro in the real world, which you reasonably doubted, but I can assure you the underlying numbers are based on real seating layouts. I don't pretend my earlier comparison was entirely perfect, but that it did reflect a real capacity difference for a viable scenario.
You can claim it's apples to oranges because Flexities have a suboptimal, seating heavy layout, whereas longitudinal seating-heavy metros are a different seating layout entirely. But in practice low floor trams usually have transverse seating over the bogie hump, whereas metros don't need to have as much transverse seating if the customer doesn't want it.
You can argue the gap between 600 and 1,000 was too big, but a gap in real life does exist. But even if they were the exact same capacity (715.5 vs. 720), the Ontario Line train is still shorter.
That's the point I was driving home about low floor platforms being longer than high floor platforms for the same capacity. Which wasted money for Eglinton and wasted money for Hurontario. We can disagree on whether low or high floor vehicles would've been better suited for Hurontario though, that's where the debate should be. Not whether high floors would have more capacity per metre.
As for the Ontario Line, 3.0 metres is the way to go, the wider the better. You can run shorter trains to start, and later add train cars easily. Not so easy to make existing trains wider unless you buy a new set of rolling stock. And metros don't get much wider than 3.0 m to begin with. If they stick to the 3.0 m plan, so far so good.
I also advocate for 100% longitudinal seating, it's the de facto standard in many cities throughout the world and is used by the REM in Montreal which is more like an RER / regional rail than a downtown metro. You would expect more transverse seating for the REM than you would the Ontario Line, but paradoxically it's the other way around.
If the extra standing capacity goes unused, you can add transverse seats later.
That is the first time I have seen you apologize, I appreciate that, genuinely.
By the way, a 6-car Toronto Rocket on Line 1 would have closer to 1,700 capacity at AW3 i.e. 6 pax/m^2 crush loads in the
internal space. That's significantly higher than any number we talked about before. You previously compared a 6 pax/m^2 Ontario Line scenario based on
internal dimensions, with a 2.44 pax/m^2 Line 1 scenario based on
external dimensions. Changing the pax/m^2 to 3 instead of 6 won't change the proportional difference in capacity. 5:10 is the same ratio as 50:100. You were comparing apples to oranges:
If you (@nfitz ) want the boring sources & calculations for the internal vehicle dimensions and capacities dependent on passenger densities, I can message you.
.
