News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Love the Red Arrow seat layout so that some folks can sit by themselves if they wish, but certainly at the expense of overall capacity during the crunch and major events.
 
Barnaby said:
Option 2 with a full walkthrough cars. Higher capacity, lower maintainance, and higher perceived safety.
Click to expand...
This is the standard for light rail and heavy rail cars worldwide and should be the same here. I hope the new Capital and Metro Line LRVs have a simliar configuration as I don't like sitting across from a stranger, especially if they are tall and we are bumping knees lol
 
For trains that would be packed all the time, option 2 is better. But purely in terms of seating arrangements I prefer option 3. It's nice to have paired and single seat options plus a bit more room to stand.
That said I can live with anything that isn't these face-to-face groupings the LRT has now.

Frankly I hate them, I don't want to have to play footsie with strangers on the train - so I usually prefer to stand up unless the train is nearly empty.
 
I think that the Metro Line could retain the SD160s because of the flexibility that they allow when it comes to running 2-3-4-5 section trains. The Capital Line should be running full length, walkthrough trains. It's often quite full.
 
Vancouver's MK2.5 and MK3 Skytrains have the Option 3 type seating layout and I much prefer that to transverse seating. It would offer a wider aisle than the current 2+2 configuration which means more passenger capacity. Longitudinal seating is way more comfortable than transverse seating in my opinion especially in sudden braking situations. Plus sittees aren't looking straight ahead at the bellies or crotches at standees. I think we need wheelchair and bicycle flex areas like what's in the Valley Line though.

When we get to the point where we've maxed out the capacity of the line and have consistent overcrowding issues, I'd then support transverse seating. We're not there yet.
 
Of the three options, I like 3 the best. But, I remember reading about a study on the New York subway that recommended offsetting the exit doors - so that people who liked to stand were at least not blocking the exit.

Where can a person find this survey? - Nevermind - it was linked...
 
Edmcowboy11 said:
#2
Click to expand...
Agreed, same seating capacity as the other options but you never have to deal with bumping into people when getting off/on. Also more standing room for busy times, and more room for bikes and strollers etc.

I'd also feel more safe with the wide open space and my back to the wall, so the whole car is always in view.
 
IMG_1813.png

Hmmmm…..interesting caption on the bottom. “Off to PCL next week?” As in a just a few 100 metres down 111th St to partake in construction of the Capital Line extension???
 
MacLac said:
View attachment 547821
Hmmmm…..interesting caption on the bottom. “Off to PCL next week?” As in a just a few 100 metres down 111th St to partake in construction of the Capital Line extension???
Click to expand...
Unlikely. It usually takes about 2-3 months for the consortium to mobilize. And PCL would subcontract to GIP before evening winning the bid. The bidding selection is already delayed- first it was Q1, now it’s not until summer. I doubt they are mobilized until Q3 or 4 2024.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top