News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 684     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Congratulations to our Avontuura Guides Winners!
 309     0 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

drum118 said:
Oh!! look at Ford ridding the subway.

Unless Ford fund other transit projects in Toronto, other than subway if he up loads the subway system, we are screw 100% until he is gone as well the PC.

Experts fear for Toronto’s long-term transit plans if province moves to upload parts of the TTC
Click to expand...
Maybe the province should download the 401 and 427 to the City instead. If not done, MTO will start building interchanges where there are no municipal roads to connect to.
Truth is that its a similar analogy. The province funds the expensive major routes that are used for Regional transportation (major highways, GO, major rapid transit-subways), while the Municipalities fund local travel from the trunk line to the destination (local roads, streetcars and buses).
 
BurlOak said:
Maybe the province should download the 401 and 427 to the City instead. If not done, MTO will start building interchanges where there are no municipal roads to connect to.
Truth is that its a similar analogy. The province funds the expensive major routes that are used for Regional transportation (major highways, GO, major rapid transit-subways), while the Municipalities fund local travel from the trunk line to the destination (local roads, streetcars and buses).
Click to expand...
The issue with the province controlling the system is they will prioritize expanding to Pickering and Markham over the Relief line. They can choose to build the Yonge extension only and give city council with no choice but to accept it without a Relief line. GO Transit was a system the simply ignored the 416 until recent plans to integrate with the TTC. The Liberals were pushing for a $3 fare to make it more affordable for short trips within the 416 but Ford haven't said he wants that. The system continues to attract mostly the 905 region only. Even if SmartTrack is built, people will choose the slower TTC if it means spending $6 instead of $11 a day on transit.
 
Northern Light said:
A discussion of Platform Edge Doors from The Star's Vancouver outpost. Discusses Toronto and systems around the globe with general bent of its very do-able.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2...fety-barriers-to-stop-train-track-deaths.html
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone thinks it's not possible to add doors (particularly if they do not reach all the way from floor to ceiling) BUT the real question is whether it is worth the cost. Doors would deter suicides, avoid people falling or being pushed into the tracks and reduce the amount of paper being blown onto the tracks - where it causes fires. Personally, I think it is a good idea for them to be installed in busy stations and any with very narrow platforms but honestly doubt it is worth the cost of retrofitting every station - at least until that station is being 'upgraded'.
 
DSC said:
I don't think anyone thinks it's not possible to add doors (particularly if they do not reach all the way from floor to ceiling) BUT the real question is whether it is worth the cost. Doors would deter suicides, avoid people falling or being pushed into the tracks and reduce the amount of paper being blown onto the tracks - where it causes fires. Personally, I think it is a good idea for them to be installed in busy stations and any with very narrow platforms but honestly doubt it is worth the cost of retrofitting every station - at least until that station is being 'upgraded'.
Click to expand...

It will also increase the speed on egress and ingress at each station. Which means trains can be quicker. And hence the capacity of the line increases.

If you to to stations throughout Asia there are arrows on the floor where to stand to enter vs exit the train. And CSR's to encourage you to follow the rules. This means there is not the annoying person standing at the centre of the door while you get out. I expect 10 seconds of savings per busy station (which many may think is small but can mean about a 5% increase in throughput)
 
muller877 said:
It will also increase the speed on egress and ingress at each station. Which means trains can be quicker. And hence the capacity of the line increases.

If you to to stations throughout Asia there are arrows on the floor where to stand to enter vs exit the train. And CSR's to encourage you to follow the rules. This means there is not the annoying person standing at the centre of the door while you get out. I expect 10 seconds of savings per busy station (which many may think is small but can mean about a 5% increase in throughput)
Click to expand...

They also need to rethink how space within the train itself is organized - the current arrangement encourages riders to congregate right by the doorway - either to lean against the glass balustrade or to use the closest handle bar. It's like the blood clot of riders flow.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They also need to rethink how space within the train itself is organized - the current arrangement encourages riders to congregate right by the doorway - either to lean against the glass balustrade or to use the closest handle bar. It's like the blood clot of riders flow.

AoD
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity what type of layout would you prefer?

The only alternative I've heard discussed was going to straight side-bench seating with no transverse seats.

I have always objected to this as I find it rather tasteless, but also more problematic for chatting orientation, and for some folks its important not to have too much side-sway.

Is there another orientation you had in mind?

Would you do something different withe balustrades?

If I had my druthers on the matter, I'd be more likely to support 100% transverse. Though I recognize that as a problem in terms of crowding and accessibility.

I also think seating size/shape needs to change to something closer to what's on the flexities, though maybe a hair wider, when in pairs.

Most folks can manage just fine w/current seat size in the summer, but in the winter, even slim folks, wearing huge bulky winter coats take up a much greater space at shoulder level than the typical seat affords.
 
Northern Light said:
Out of curiosity what type of layout would you prefer?
The only alternative I've heard discussed was going to straight side-bench seating with no transverse seats.
I have always objected to this as I find it rather tasteless, but also more problematic for chatting orientation, and for some folks its important not to have too much side-sway.
Is there another orientation you had in mind?
Would you do something different withe balustrades?
Click to expand...

I don't have the slightest issue with side-bench seating only -and it has the added bonus of facilitating movement along the train. Tasteless or not, efficiency matters - and frankly, less chatting the better.

As to the balustrades, a neat arrangement I have seen in Barcelona and Madrid is a "bump-out" that allow one rider to lean on the inner wall of the train beside the exit. It worked wonders.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't have the slightest issue with side-bench seating only -and it has the added bonus of facilitating movement along the train. Tasteless or not, efficiency matters - and frankly, less chatting the better.

As to the balustrades, a neat arrangement I have seen in Barcelona and Madrid is a "bump-out" that allow one rider to lean on the inner wall of the train beside the exit. It worked wonders.

AoD
Click to expand...

I'm surprised by that, and have to disagree on this one.

I think taste and comfort matter. That they have to be delivered in as efficient a manner as is practical is a given, but I'm willing to do w/o them.

I see no reason I should have to.

The argument of overcrowded is predicated on too few lines w/service below requisite demand.

I would rather pay an .25c a ride to have a comfy seat than stand from 10km, or sit in a seat that doesn't have good lower-back support or where I'm squished!

This video shows the layout for the new generation of BART cars. Looks interesting

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/hidden-art-designing-trains-anti-social-commuters/


This car is from Paris (from Vooney's Blog)


mp89ca_interior.jpg


This is Vancouver Mark II

I'm in love w/the recessed lighting in this one. (from Vooney's Blog)

skytrainmk2interior1.jpeg
 
Northern Light said:
This is Vancouver Mark II

I'm in love w/the recessed lighting in this one. (from Vooney's Blog)

skytrainmk2interior1.jpeg
Click to expand...
That is the newer Mark III. They feel modern and comfortable but I don't think it'll solve the issue about crowding around the doors.

The fundamental problem with the TTC is trains get too packed but most of them are getting off within two to three stops. It's not the people from Finch or Kennedy that crowds around the door, it's the people getting on at Bloor. The relief line would see less of this problem since the ride from Pape or beyond is much longer than Bloor to Dundas. People aren't going to squeeze to get to the middle of the car to just fight their way out again.
 
Aug 16
I will add these photos out of order
30441837478_2a48c7b873_b.jpg


This shows where the train is between stations and what bus routes are service by the next station
44308673791_c6bddd8b66_b.jpg


Seating on the Azur
30441775488_f9fe685d90_b.jpg
 
There's really nothing wrong with the TTC's seating layout on subway trains. The way it is currently set up, it maximizes seating space and makes the best use out of standing areas. Having an all perimeter seating layout would reduce the seat count, and would have the undesirable effect of having passenger legs protruding out to the aisle which takes up valuable aisle space.

The only vehicles that really have seating layout issues in the TTC's fleet are the Flexitiy's, early Orion VIIs and early NovaBus'.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top