Mississauga Hurontario-Main Line 10 LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[drum118]

But I said the north section, not the south section. I get the south section is behind, but the area from MCC to the north seems much further ahead.

By the end of 2026, all tracks could be in place from Steeles to Port Credit, depending on how much trackwork has to be rebuilt. This doesn't require phasing. If the loop is to be part of the line for opening day, you may have to do a phasing for Sq One to Steeles, depending on what ML wants for opening day. Otherwise, no need for any phasing now with the Brampton guideway being built with Port Credit, either by year's end or early January, taking place.

If you have a real close look at the trackwork that is already done, you will find all kinds of rail removed or cut out, let alone not completed.

What I am seeing is a push to get new tracks installed, with make-work to deal with trackwork needing replacement as well the incomplete areas.

Intersections that needs work will happen first before the other trackwork. If you look a the two intersections having guideway built for them, trackwork for the intersection is being done first with the connecting trackwork being done later even though all the trackwork is in place for some of the connecting section.

There is tons of work to be done before testing can start. By the time testing may start, the test bay maybe extended both ends of the plan area for July 2025, There has been a major push since September starting with trackwork and now the guideway.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I was hoping to hear from @Midtown Urbanist why he felt they were so different.

The seats are very cramped, the photo I provided shows that there is very little leg room for two adults to sit across from another without having to share personal space, which is very unfortunate. That is not the worst situation either, as some of the seats tucked behind the exit doors or articulation joint areas do not even fit an adult properly, only child-sized humans.

Transit Toronto Image: TTC LRV 6201 20190522-2

This is the Flexity Freedom vehicle to be used on Line 5, which is what we are familiar on our TTC streetcar network, just reskinned for Metrolinx colours.

This is what it's like inside Toronto's brand-new Finch West LRT trains

The Finch West LRT is actually due to open in 2024, at least, if you take Metrolinx's word for it. The 10.3-kilometre light rail line, destined to op…

www.blogto.com

This is the Alstom Citadis on the Finch Line and set to come to Hurontario Line. Aesthetics aside, it just feels way more cramped in person compared to the Flexity Freedom vehicles.

I would not describe the situation as if the Alstom Citadis vehicles are a flop, they are similar to many vehicles I have seen in other jurisdictions. In my opinion however, the Bombardier Flexity Freedoms are significantly nicer to be seated in and feel way more spacious, which I have affirmed in my mind having ridden in a streetcar this evening and receiving a fresh comparison to yesterday's Alstom experience.

 

[nfitz]

I would not describe the situation as if the Alstom Citadis vehicles are a flop, they are similar to many vehicles I have seen in other jurisdictions. In my opinion however, the Bombardier Flexity Freedoms are significantly nicer to be seated in and feel way more spacious, which I have affirmed in my mind having ridden in a streetcar this evening and receiving a fresh comparison to yesterday's Alstom experience.

Interesting. I don't see how the width can be any different. It's not like the car width is any different than a Flexity Freedom (like in Waterloo). I suppose the aisle could be wider than the TTC's Flexity Outlooks, that are slightly narrower than the Freedoms and Citadis. But they don't look particularly narrow.

And really narrow seats? Did they put two seats in the spot on a Flexity where they put the really wide seat for ... uh ... people who like really wide seats (well often a parent and small child).

Is there less space between the pairs of seats (front and back, not side by side)? Oh well, it's probably better than the cattle cars they got in Montreal for the REM. And that I'm guessing we'll get on the Ontario Line.

How do you see the LRVs on Finch being a high class vehicle??

???? I wasn't. I ASKED Midtown Urbanist why they did. And they've answered.

Do you disagree with them? I'm not sure why when person A asks B a question about their thoughts, you jump in and explain different thoughts (and mention somewhere entirely different), and then you ask me to explain B's thoughts ... instead of just letting B reply?

 

[drum118]

Nov 27
More up on my site

Guideway curb poured with duck banks being installed with partly pave sidewalk between the guideway and Mary Fix Creek

Paving of the walkway from the north end of the wooden sound barrier wall to Englewood and beside the guideway

Three poles removed at Mineola to allow the corner to be built with poles still to be remove. The walkway disappear at the corner with people waling in live traffic both direction to use the rest of the walkway.

Still 6 poles to be remove down to Englewood from where the real shift takes place at Marry Fix Creek for the northbound lanes. Curb will be pour on the east side of the remaining poles to the north side of Cousin

 

[drum118]

Nov 28
More up on my site

Southbound trackwork ready to be pour with work almost completed for the northbound with forming to take place before been pour.

Driveway for the fire station to go north until the new driveway this is currently been built. That driveway will have to be dug up to build the guideway that is already built on both side of it

Concrete been poured for the guideway base at King St

Guideway waiting trackwork that will take place once Hillcrest Intersection open to the trackwork in place down to Angie

Trackwork been place in the guideway for Hillcrest Intersection

 

[urbanclient]

Oh well, it's probably better than the cattle cars they got in Montreal for the REM.

Gonna hop in here and ask, what do you have against longitudinal seating for metro rolling stock? It's the de facto global standard. It makes it easier to board and disembark and maximizes the space used. If you like your personal space, longitudinal seating will make it so people are farther from you all other factors being equal.

Also please reread those other posts carefully, I don't see what the cause for disagreement is.

 

[drum118]

Nov 30
Part one More up on my site

Stakes in place to pour the guideway curb

Backfilling taking place at Steeles for the new northbound lanes

Cannot see why the northbound lanes over the 407 no open yet

 

[smallspy]

Gonna hop in here and ask, what do you have against longitudinal seating for metro rolling stock? It's the de facto global standard. It makes it easier to board and disembark and maximizes the space used. If you like your personal space, longitudinal seating will make it so people are farther from you all other factors being equal.

While it is better for increasing the passenger-carrying capability of rolling stock, and is better for making vehicles accessible, studies have also shown that passengers generally find it less comfortable.

This is why most legacy transit systems will equip their trains (and buses) with a mixture of seating positions.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

studies have also shown that passengers generally find it less comfortable.

I don't buy those studies, or rather the conclusions others derive from them. Most people do just fine with longitudinal seating on a train. Only a very small minority of people have chronic ailments that would affect their ability to sit longitudinally and/or get motion sickness on trains. Anecdotally, I have been thrown out of transverse bus and train seats during hard braking. I stumbled forward and landed standing on my feet, but AFAIK I don't have any chronic ailments. I would think Grammy Edna, with her vertigo and high blood pressure, wouldn't take getting thrown onto the hard floor well.

If you ever get to ride a subway that is operated with some fervour, unlike the Line 1 sunday driving experience, you'll know what I am talking about.

Motion sickness on a boat, bus or car is an everyday risk for many, but on a train, come on man, the chances are much lower. If they can survive walking onto the subway train, they can survive sitting longitudinally for a few minutes to an hour. Elderly people in my family who always get carsick never get motion sick on the subway. Throwing the baby out with the bath water to help them feel a bit more comfortable leads to a net loss for society.

This mentality that we should sacrifice the economics and thereby the derived social benefits of a rapid transit system in pursuit of maximizing comfort, far down the list of priorities is frankly ridiculous. This usually only comes from people privileged enough to avoid crowded transit, privileged enough to avoid crush load subway cars, privileged enough to not be living in a developing country. *cough* *city council* *cough* *Metrolinx execs*. Not to mention it goes against global best practices. Transverse seating only makes sense for transit where the load factor during most of the day is low. For a serious transit line like the REM, which is supposed to be Montreal's regional backbone and absorb decades of ridership growth on <80 metre trains, it absolutely makes no sense. It is a travesty that the fast and frequent Ontario line will be plagued by regressive, antiquated transverse seating. That is despite having a much higher load factor and ridership projection than the REM. Those saying otherwise reveal an unworldly mindset and lack of understanding how serious metro systems work.

 

[JJTheJetPln]

Two things I noted while riding NB back from Square One on the 502:

1. Around the 401, Rail ties were actively being unloaded. PNR was on site doing their thing.

2. No left turns from Ambassador to Hurontario, or Hurontario to Ambassador as the middle of the intersection was torn up for guideway work. A temporary pedestrian bridge has been installed in the interim.

 

[KhalilHeron]

I don't buy those studies, or rather the conclusions others derive from them. Most people do just fine with longitudinal seating on a train. Only a very small minority of people have chronic ailments that would affect their ability to sit longitudinally and/or get motion sickness on trains. Anecdotally, I have been thrown out of transverse bus and train seats during hard braking. I stumbled forward and landed standing on my feet, but AFAIK I don't have any chronic ailments. I would think Grammy Edna, with her vertigo and high blood pressure, wouldn't take getting thrown onto the hard floor well.

If you ever get to ride a subway that is operated with some fervour, unlike the Line 1 sunday driving experience, you'll know what I am talking about.

Motion sickness on a boat, bus or car is an everyday risk for many, but on a train, come on man, the chances are much lower. If they can survive walking onto the subway train, they can survive sitting longitudinally for a few minutes to an hour. Elderly people in my family who always get carsick never get motion sick on the subway. Throwing the baby out with the bath water to help them feel a bit more comfortable leads to a net loss for society.

This mentality that we should sacrifice the economics and thereby the derived social benefits of a rapid transit system in pursuit of maximizing comfort, far down the list of priorities is frankly ridiculous. This usually only comes from people privileged enough to avoid crowded transit, privileged enough to avoid crush load subway cars, privileged enough to not be living in a developing country. *cough* *city council* *cough* *Metrolinx execs*. Not to mention it goes against global best practices. Transverse seating only makes sense for transit where the load factor during most of the day is low. For a serious transit line like the REM, which is supposed to be Montreal's regional backbone and absorb decades of ridership growth on <80 metre trains, it absolutely makes no sense. It is a travesty that the fast and frequent Ontario line will be plagued by regressive, antiquated transverse seating. That is despite having a much higher load factor and ridership projection than the REM. Those saying otherwise reveal an unworldly mindset and lack of understanding how serious metro systems work.

less comfort could simply come from longitudinal seating layouts having fewer overall seats, making more people stand. Only times i've been uncomfortable with a longitudinal layout is in montreal, the seats were so slippery i slid around like crazy every time we accelerated

 

[urbanclient]

longitudinal seating layouts having fewer overall seats [all other factors being the same]

Longitudinal seating layouts having fewer overall seats than transverse, all other factors being the same, is NOT possible in virtually all cases. I'm not sure I need to explain this for other people.

Given the same amount of space, you would always be able to fit more longitudinal seating, especially if continuous bench seating. Given the same amount of seating area/aka floor area taken up by seating, you would always have more standing space with a longitudinal layout. Given the same amount of passengers on a train, it is always easier to find a seat in a longitudinal layout since more seats are available, more seats are visible, and the aisles are wider. The only exception is in bizarro world where the rolling stock manufacturer makes a longitudinal layout with tiny short benches that don't use up the available perimeter space. For all intents and purposes, longitudinal layouts allow more people to sit, more easily, with less people having to stand. Properly calculated permissible turn speeds and well designed benches as shown below will prevent you from sliding off. Finally, any acceleration leading to you sliding off is more likely to occur under heavy braking and turning for transverse seating than for longitudinal seating. Think about the ergonomics of your feet resting on the ground, knees slightly elevated on properly designed longitudinal seating, in sharp turns, the friction between your feet and the train floor will easily resist all lateral train acceleration. Hard braking for transverse seating can cause you to fall forwards out of the seat because max braking deceleration is much stronger than the lateral acceleration on subways.

Seriously, anybody unironically defending transverse seating as the superior layout beyond comfort related to reduced motion sickness has either never ridden a metro outside North America, and/or is being intellectually dishonest. Yes for long-distance intercity HSR, we should have transverse seating. For virtually all metros, ideally, no.

 

[nfitz]

Given the same amount of space, you would always be able to fit more longitudinal seating, especially if continuous bench seating.

Then why is there less seats for longitudinal seating than transverse seating?

Seems a bit of an overkill to deal with those with motion sickness riding backwards.

 

[urbanclient]

Then why is there less seats for longitudinal seating than transverse seating?

Seems a bit of an overkill to deal with those with motion sickness riding backwards.

*Sigh* it's always this again... Read this slowly: All other factors being the same "Given the same amount of space, ____ you would always be able to fit more longitudinal seating, _____ especially if continuous bench seating." Continuous bench seating gets you more seating space than curved derriere shaped bucket seats, this design is maximized with longitudinal seating. Why could there possibly be less total seats for a longitudinal seating layout than transverse seating? Ceteris Paribus. Please explain.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What I want to know is whether longitudinal seating improve boarding time by speeding up the spread of riders into the interior of the vehicle during peak periods. The narrowness of central corridors at the transverse seating is bit of a chokepoint.

AoD