Towered
Senior Member
Really? Having people face each other again?
Both Metrolinx and TTC were using 130 for their peak capacity, for their respectivfe 30-metre cars.Crush load? Absolutely.
Both Metrolinx and TTC were using 130 for their peak capacity, for their respectivfe 30-metre cars.
That suggests that the Alstom car would be 195. Let's call it 200, with 110 seats.
292 would be very crush load - you don't see this on TTC with people wearing coats, and carrying briefcases and knapsacks. The only time you see anything close is when it's all point-to-point - like a completely empty car boarding at Exhibition, after a football, or CFL game, and people are younger, thinner, and aren't carrying much (because of stadium restrictions. And they all enter together and are much better about squeezing in and going to the back than you see in regular service.
But if you do see this in regular service - it's a nightmare at each stop, as people struggle to get to the doors, and many people get out, wait for one person to get out, get back in, while a few more try and squeeze in.
I suppose if the 110 seats, all had an infant on their las, then you'd be at 310!
Still, it's great news that Metrolinx is increasing the frequency, so there'll always be seats (at least on an average basis I'd assume).
At first blush, my primary observation is that the passage way between the sets of seats is awfully narrow.
This is an issue if you expect people to flow (spread out) through the vehicle.
Both physically and psychologically people are disinclined to walk through narrow spaces to get to another spot.
I hasten to add, are those walkways even large enough for today's strollers? They certainly don't seem wide enough for scooters.
You see the same everywhere. Many a time, I've though through the CLRV crowd from the front doors, to discover empty seats at the back. It's even more true on buses, where you are crush-loaded, and then find out no one is even standing on or above the stairs.Story time. On my way to the Christmas Market, I boarded an LFLRV at King Street. The tram appeared absolutely packed. I could just barely squeeze in the vehicle, with by back smooshed against the door. But the tram wasn't anywhere near full! I looked down the tram into the first module, and saw that it was almost completely empty. I start telling people that there's room in the front of the LRV, and a few of them reluctantly move down there. Even then, there was tons of room left in that first module; I could've easily laid across the floor if I wanted to. Because of that collective stupidity, the capacity of the tram was effectively cut by 20%.
You don't though - the assumption is, that you stay in your section. People will start loading more sensible as time passes.At first blush, my primary observation is that the passage way between the sets of seats is awfully narrow.
This is an issue if you expect people to flow (spread out) through the vehicle.
This is to keep them in the accessible section I'd think. They don't really want them trying to move back through the whole train to get to the ramp to exit.I hasten to add, are those walkways even large enough for today's strollers? They certainly don't seem wide enough for scooters.
I was being sarcastic. Though I've congratulated Metrolinx for increasing the frequency and making the policy, and asked TTC when did they authorize and fund this?Ehh, I wouldn't make that assumption based on a Tweet that was probably sent by someone not at all familiar with the technical details of the line. Plus, I'm pretty sure the TTC will be setting service levels, as they will be running the service, and the service will be funded by the City of Toronto.
Really? Having people face each other again?
A few comments:
- of all the environments to have a multi-billion dollar, high capacity, modern LRT line, why would you render it as going through single family detached bungalows?
Alstom faces the same physical restrictions in how you can fit bogies under seats in a low-floor vehicle as Bombardier did. I'm not surprised to see that it's the same layout.
the issue is that these seats are completely useless for anyone who is ~5'7 " and over.
I should have clarified; when 3/4 seats are occupied they are useless for anyone over ~5'7". I'm a bit over 6 feet tall myself and I have to vacate those seats anytime a 3rd person comes in due to the lack of leg room.That’s quite the exaggeration.
Another fetish I dont understand is the 2+2 inward facing seats. I dont care if I have to face someone when i'm commuting that's not the point, the issue is that these seats are completely useless for anyone who is ~5'7 " and over. It's just a lazy way to put seats into an LRV.