Yeah, normally any transit project would have a huge latitude in terms of how disruptive it can be, but given how much better the alternative plan is and how it aligns with future goals for University Ave, it's bizarre that they're so stubborn on this.
Look forward to the legal challenges.
If I'm not mistaken, the numbers in the OL PDBC pointed towards Hitachi (formerly AnsaldoBreda) as the favourite to be the vehicle supplier due to it being the only vehicle capable of running driverless 90sec headways (most are 120sec) with steel wheels (as opposed to rubber tracked).
I don't like the looks of the counter-proposal; maybe because it's non-symmetrical.
Now think of how much wider the median would be if it's expanded over both directions' left lanes. Turn that into the linear park. Add more pedestrian crossings connecting the median to both sides of University.
Is Innovia no longer specced for that? It certainly was under ICTS branding.
I don't think we should read that much into a stylised graphic. We know it will have a pantograph, Metrolinx has been clear about that. The design of the front, who knows? This really doesn't tell us anything useful. Unless we are to take this entirely seriously and assume Metrolinx will cut every tree along the line into a perfect sphere. Could it have a flat front? maybe. But this image is not some sort of proof. Worth noting, the train shown here has no doors.From Infrastructure Ontario twitter.
I see a train profile with flat front and pantograph, which looks more like Rome, than Lima.
I’d like to see some interior design improvements. The Montreal metro cars feel much more comfortable and modern. I’d also add more passenger amenities, such as hand sanitizer dispenses (very appreciated on the UPX, WiFi and mobile device chargers.
I mean width should be practically the same. I do agree that as always Metrolinx' numbers feel off (though whether its up or down depends on the number) that being said, I do think we could eke out a lot more capacity from a train with a better layout for short trips - i.e. longitudinal.
Other systems are def capable of 90s. The REM folks have brought it up to me.
I don't think it's some case of Metrolinx implying the stations are some kind of TARDIS, but more that they initially showed the renderings from the most flattering angle, the 3/4 view. There's a reason most press photos of cars are taken from the same angle. It hides unwanted bulk. I don't think the two renderings show a structure any different in scale, one is just far more flattering to it's size than the other is. Now , it's totally fair to have issue with the angle Metrolinx to show the design from as artificially minimising the bulk of the station building, but I don't think this is some kind of bait-and-switch in terms of how big the building is, just some deceptive marketing (which is it's own separate problem). Ideally Metrolinx would just provide us with some diagrams of the stations instead of just shiny renders, but that would require a level of transparency they seem to hate.