Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[ARG1]

The wide-body design of the TR’s enables a floor plan with a greater ratio of standing vs sitting space. Narrower trains will inherently have proportionally less standing space (and thus fewer passengers per square meter) than a wider train with the same seating accommodations. In short, pax/m^2 is strongly correlated with the width of the train.

So somehow MX expects the OL rolling stock to significantly exceed the pax/m^2 of the TRs, despite the OL rolling stock being significantly narrower. It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe they're planning no seats?

I'm very, very, very suspect of MX's supposed loading standards with the OL. I've seen transit agencies time and time again use unrealistic loading standards to justify rolling stock purchases. Right here in Toronto, you can find documents claiming that the LFLRVs/Flexity Freedom can load up to 250 passengers. I guarantee you that has never happened in revenue service (you'd be lucky to fit 100 passengers in an LFLRV at peak hour). Transit operators grossly overestimating capacity (often for political reasons) is unfortunately the norm in this industry.

Significantly narrower? Its 3m vs 3.3m, or 10/11th of the width. While it is narrower, I wouldn't call it "significantly narrower". Significantly narrower would be the Azur's 2.5m wide cars which the Ontario Line won't be coming anywhere close to.

 

[Northern Light]

Significantly narrower? Its 3m vs 3.3m, or 10/11th of the width. While it is narrower, I wouldn't call it "significantly narrower". Significantly narrower would be the Azur's 2.5m wide cars which the Ontario Line won't be coming anywhere close to.

In fairness to @TheTigerMaster a 10% cut is statistically significant. Also, assuming you can't cut the depth of the seats; even if they were all side-seating..........you're taking that approx. 1 foot entirely out of the standing room.

Standing room is just over 68 inches between side-wall seats on a T1; so a 1ft cut takes you to 56 inches. A 17.6% cut.

Notable; because the space between the transverse seats is ~ 62 inches.

That certainly means taking out standing room of 1 passenger per seat along the length of the car.

Reference here for schematic layout of the T1: https://transittoronto.ca/images/subway-5504-01.gif

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

In fairness to @TheTigerMaster a 10% cut is statistically significant. Also, assuming you can't cut the depth of the seats; even if they were all side-seating..........you're taking that approx. 1 foot entirely out of the standing room.

Standing room is just over 68 inches between side-wall seats on a T1; so a 1ft cut takes you to 56 inches. A 17.6% cut.

Notable; because the space between the transverse seats is ~ 62 inches.

That certainly means taking out standing room of 1 passenger per seat along the length of the car.

Reference here for schematic layout of the T1: https://transittoronto.ca/images/subway-5504-01.gif

It matters, but doesn't matter as much as ultimate train length limitations; also side-facing seat arrangement is a more efficient use of space on a train and should be adopted.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

also side-facing seat arrangement is a more efficient use of space on a train and should be adopted.

AoD

I fundamentally disagree on this one.

Many people get motion sickness from being in a vehicle and not facing the direction of travel.

I believe the absence of transverse seating would adversely affect said persons; and would likely constitute a violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I would support a legal challenge to that effect.

That aside, while I don't require transverse seats, I prefer them.

And I believe comfort matters, just like aesthetics.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I fundamentally disagree on this one.

Many people get motion sickness from being in a vehicle and not facing the direction of travel.

I believe the absence of transverse seating would adversely affect said persons; and would likely constitute a violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I would support a legal challenge to that effect.

And I would support a removal of clauses in the AODA to that effect, should the AODA be used in this manner.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

And I would support a removal of clauses in the AODA to that effect, should the AODA be used in this manner.

AoD

@Northern Light has a point though. There are a lot of people out there who have serious issues riding in a direction that's not facing forward, sometimes due to past psychological trauma or relating to mental health. At the very least some transverse seating should be provided (If the Skytrain can run transverse seats while having narrow trains, the Ontario Line could definitely fit some in). While making sure we have enough Rush Hour Capacity is important, we have to remember that not everyone uses these trains during rush hours, a lot of elderly people and other folk have to rely on the subway to get places during evenings and off peak times, and they should be accommodated as well, not just people travelling during rush hour.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

@Northern Light has a point though. There are a lot of people out there who have serious issues riding in a direction that's not facing forward, sometimes due to past psychological trauma or relating to mental health. At the very least some transverse seating should be provided (If the Skytrain can run transverse seats while having narrow trains, the Ontario Line could definitely fit some in). While making sure we have enough Rush Hour Capacity is important, we have to remember that not everyone uses these trains during rush hours, a lot of elderly people and other folk have to rely on the subway to get places during evenings and off peak times, and they should be accommodated as well, not just people travelling during rush hour.

It has a negative impact on circulation (nevermind capacity) - though I am not entirely opposed the provision of these seats at the ends of the train car where the impact can be minimized. I am not at all convinced by the off-rush argument - this type of seating is common elsewhere in the world, with little to no impact on the elderly or "other folks". It's a non-issue as a demand-driver.

AoD

 

[Undead]

I fundamentally disagree on this one.

Many people get motion sickness from being in a vehicle and not facing the direction of travel.

I believe the absence of transverse seating would adversely affect said persons; and would likely constitute a violation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

I would support a legal challenge to that effect.

That aside, while I don't require transverse seats, I prefer them.

And I believe comfort matters, just like aesthetics.

I'm sensitive to accessibility concerns, but hamstringing capacity over this seems silly.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm sensitive to accessibility concerns, but hamstringing capacity over this seems silly.

The O/L has a some serious capacity constraints in its model; this would be peripheral in relative terms.

 

[robmausser]

The TR's are a bad train and I am not sure what the obsession with using them is.

People are emotional beings. Simple as that. They grew up in Toronto with the subway meaning a specific thing, and wanted to see that thing expanded to new lines around the city. That is their vision in their head in the future. And when you offer up a different future, even one that is better, people cling to their own perceptions of what they imagined the future to be like.

You see this all the time in clinical psychology, people will literally be offered some amazing opportunity in life, and turn it down to follow the life path they decided for themselves when they were an ignorant 18 year old, because that opportunity wasn't what they wanted, even when the opportunity is objectively better.

People will then use all kinds of logic to try and convince themselves that the emotional thing they desire is better, when they have already reached a conclusion and are cherry picking evidence to support it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Further I am not sure what the obsession with having *higher* capacity than even Yonge is, it makes no sense. The OL will be a lower ridership line for so many reasons which is part of why it does not need as much capacity as Yonge in the first place. It will be travelling through lower density less developed areas, it will be connecting less major destinations, it will have less reverse commute traffic, etc. it does not need Yonge Capacity and it is a great opportunity to use better trains with higher performance (ability to climb steeped grades and take tighter corners and hit a higher trop speed), reduce operating costs with automation, and improve reliability with overhead power, most of these things cannot be done with the TR's.

Is it though? The original Yonge Line also travelled through lower density, less developed areas historically that has subsequently intensified (in fact, one can argue it is the one factor that drove intensification patterns in the N-S axis - even now). Shortcomings of TR is one thing, it does not negate the utility of excess capacity for a line with an arbitrary termination at Eglinton with modelling on that basis, when we know plausible future alignments will basically hit spots of intensification potential.

You don't have to size everything to increased capacity - but you *should* do it where it will be difficult if not impossible to do in the future (key underground stations); and you need to have a plan for that eventuality for where you didn't build to excess (e.g. elevated station extensions).

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

People are emotional beings. Simple as that. They grew up in Toronto with the subway meaning a specific thing, and wanted to see that thing expanded to new lines around the city. That is their vision in their head in the future. And when you offer up a different future, even one that is better, people cling to their own perceptions of what they imagined the future to be like.

You see this all the time in clinical psychology, people will literally be offered some amazing opportunity in life, and turn it down to follow the life path they decided for themselves when they were an ignorant 18 year old, because that opportunity wasn't what they wanted, even when the opportunity is objectively better.

People will then use all kinds of logic to try and convince themselves that the emotional thing they desire is better, when they have already reached a conclusion and are cherry picking evidence to support it.

All of what is said above is true...........but....

It applies equally to those who ignore entirely valid concerns about a new opportunity/different technology etc.

Which is to say, there is a case to be made for the Ontario Line, as proposed; there is a case to be made against it, as proposed.

I think it does a disservice to those who raise legitimate concerns to suggest they are being emotional; while somehow proponents are entirely rational.

People arguing their case may well have their views coloured by emotion; but that doesn't mean they are making substantively incorrect arguments.

 

[dullturtle06]

The wide-body design of the TR’s enables a floor plan with a greater ratio of standing vs sitting space. Narrower trains will inherently have proportionally less standing space (and thus fewer passengers per square meter) than a wider train with the same seating accommodations. In short, pax/m^2 is strongly correlated with the width of the train.

So somehow MX expects the OL rolling stock to significantly exceed the pax/m^2 of the TRs, despite the OL rolling stock being significantly narrower. It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe they're planning no seats?

I'm very, very, very suspect of MX's supposed loading standards with the OL. I've seen transit agencies time and time again use unrealistic loading standards to justify rolling stock purchases. Right here in Toronto, you can find documents claiming that the LFLRVs/Flexity Freedom can load up to 250 passengers. I guarantee you that has never happened in revenue service (you'd be lucky to fit 100 passengers in an LFLRV at peak hour). Transit operators grossly overestimating capacity (often for political reasons) is unfortunately the norm in this industry.

The ontario line trains are to be 3 meters wide. The TR trains are 3.2 meters wide. How is 20 cm "significantly narrower"?

And yes the metrolinx tender sets 3 meter width as the required standard. With option for 80 meter to 100 meter length at full build out.

 

[Northern Light]

Is it though? The original Yonge Line also travelled through lower density, less developed areas historically that has subsequently intensified (in fact, one can argue it is the one factor that drove intensification patterns in the N-S axis - even now). Shortcomings of TR is one thing, it does not negate the utility of excess capacity for a line with an arbitrary termination at Eglinton with modelling on that basis, when we know plausible future alignments will basically hit spots of intensification potential.

You don't have to size everything to increased capacity - but you *should* do it where it will be difficult if not impossible to do in the future (key underground stations); and you need to have a plan for that eventuality for where you didn't build to excess (e.g. elevated station extensions).

AoD

Agreed...........

But to further that...........

Lets look at the actual routing......

Exhibition (south end of Liberty Village...........) very dense.

Bathurst/King area - dense and densifying.

Queen/Spadina (Entertainment District) Dense to Very Dense

Downtown - Very Dense

Sherbourne/Queen (Moss Park) already dense, with large clusters of new towers proposed.

Corktown (dense)

East Harbour (very dense, once built)

Queen - (lower density)

Gerrard (lower density, but likely to change)

Danforth (lower density)

Cosburn (moderately dense with hirise apartments lining Cosburn)

Thorncliffe (dense)

Flemingdon (dense)

Eglinton (Crosstown Community) (dense once built-out)

***

Compare that level of density with Line 1 today and it would compare favourably...........never mind what Yonge looked like when Line 1 was built.

 

[Northern Light]

The ontario line trains are to be 3 meters wide. The TR trains are 3.2 meters wide. How is 20 cm "significantly narrower"?

And yes the metrolinx tender sets 3 meter width as the required standard. With option for 80 meter to 100 meter length at full build out.

I answered this question, in this post:

Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

The wide-body design of the TR’s enables a floor plan with a greater ratio of standing vs sitting space. Narrower trains will inherently have proportionally less standing space (and thus fewer passengers per square meter) than a wider train with the same seating accommodations. In short, pax/m^2...

urbantoronto.ca