[Streety McCarface]

Never been inside a tram, light rail vehicle, metro, or tube car outside of Toronto, I see.

Used to live in Tokyo and Chicago, visit all over the place. The issue here is not that the design is inherently bad for a tram, but it sucks for light rail, especially Toronto light rail. Our system is objectively more crowded (meaning less space for passengers, not having the most passengers) than any other system in Canada and the United States. I don't genuinely have a problem with the width of light rail vehicles, but the way they've laid out the seats is both extremely uncomfortable and awkward. With low floor light rail without steps, you can't get around the narrow walkway, but you can avoid the 4 seats facing each other. I understand that the bogies are underneath, but you can still have step up sections to seats facing inward, similar to articulated buses:

In reference to the 4 seats facing each other that are not on top of the bogies, you can have all the seats face one direction instead of each other:

(It's a high floor vehicle, yes, but the point still stands).
Just give us more standing room, we don't need to cram as many people as possible onto seats. I for one don't mind standing on a 15 minute train ride. Even though sitting is nice, it's much worse than standing if you can't get off at your stop or if your legroom is limited by the legs of the person in front of you. There are better ways to do this, even if we want 100% low floor vehicles.

EDIT: Most North American subway cars tend to be nearly as wide as Toronto's, and if they aren't, the seating is all inward facing to improve space for standees. I wouldn't have a problem with the seating design if ridership on the finch west corridor wasn't so high, but this line is likely to see at least 40K passengers per day when it opens, so optimizing the trains for more standing room makes a lot of sense.

 

[JSF-1]

If you can find a way to build a low floor lrt that doesnt require any space for the wheels, id love to see it.

Already exists, however only 2 cities in the world use them. The idea of the "Ultra Low-Floor" tram just never took off I guess. Likely due to maintenece costs and just generally complexity to produce and maintain.

 

[APTA-2048]

It isn't actually. You don't see 100% low-floor buses.

Accessibility is the requirement. Doesn't have to be 100% accessible. The same way you don't need to make every subway station entrance accessible - only one, even if it's a long walk.

I believe, in Toronto's case, the 100% low floor for streetcars was a recommendation from ACAT.

 

[nfitz]

I believe, in Toronto's case, the 100% low floor for streetcars was a recommendation from ACAT.

That rings a bell. They didn't quite achieve it, with the step behind the back doors, to get the seats at the very back. Close enough though ...

Already exists, however only 2 cities in the world use them.

Not sure the point with those photos above ... you can see huge amounts of lost space with the bulkheads for the wheels. They don't even preserve the space with seats ... isn't this even worse?

 

[JSF-1]

Not sure the point with those photos above ... you can see huge amounts of lost space with the bulkheads for the wheels. They don't even preserve the space with seats ... isn't this even worse?

The point is to prove that yes an Low-Floor LRV which doesn't have seats compete with the wheels and other stuff can be built and has been. However it never took off because of the sheer complexity to maintain. As well the ones used in Vienna have to contend with narrow European streets so the loading gauge his limited heavily. This isn't a problem here since streets like Eglinton are far wider and thus loading gauge can be much broader. Regardless in the case of high capacity LRT lines, High Floor LRV's are superior to Low-Floor ones but that's not what we went with.

Just as an aside you can see in this picture where Siemens crammed the motors for those LRV's (this is why nobody really uses these trains). As well the trucks are located under the articulated joints instead of under the cars themselves like with our LRV's. This does mean that segment length is shorter for balance issues but ultimately the length of each individual segment doesn't matter when compared to the overall length of the train.

 

[Steve X]

The problem with high floor LRVs isn't with the vehicles itself but the platform would have a slope ramp or stairs. This increases the cost of clearing snow in the winter as well as making it much more hazardous for riders. Especially the seniors and those with mobility devices. They also have more issues with emergency evacuation in the middle of the tracks.

 

[smallspy]

I have posted this more than once before but I suppose it bears repeating, this crappy low floor design is only like this because of 100% low floor. The Siemens S70 used in Portland and soon Seattle (among many others) is 70% low floor and arguably the entire low floor section is actually accessible (ours is not really navigable with a wheelchair look at how narrow it is by the bogies). They also have 4 door to our 3, and the center bogie has inward facing seats:

The middle truck on the S70 doesn't pivot. It isn't powered, and it doesn't have axles. Thus, the aisle can be much wider as there is nothing to intrude into the carbody save for the wheels themselves.

If the S70 was built like the Flexities, that aisle would be much narrower, and the seat backs would be located quite a distance - maybe as much as a foot - from the interior walls, rather than almost right against them.

Dan

 

[rbt]

The Siemens S70 ...

... can't turn right from Bathurst to King without demolishing the Banknote Bar; or make numerous other turns in the existing network. The geometry you're praising is why downtown can't use it.

 

[Streety McCarface]

... can't turn right from Bathurst to King without demolishing the Banknote Bar; or make numerous other turns in the existing network. The geometry you're praising is why downtown can't use it.

But we're not complaining about the streetcar network, we're talking about Finch West, which is a fairly straight corridor for the most part. The LFLRVs are best for downtown because of on-street boarding and the curves that exist there, but the LRT lines are a bit different. They are meant to be more rapid with low dwell times, level boarding, farther stop spacing, etc. They're not meant to provide local service to all the nooks and crannies of downtown.

 

[robmausser]

I have posted this more than once before but I suppose it bears repeating, this crappy low floor design is only like this because of 100% low floor. The Siemens S70 used in Portland and soon Seattle (among many others) is 70% low floor and arguably the entire low floor section is actually accessible (ours is not really navigable with a wheelchair look at how narrow it is by the bogies). They also have 4 door to our 3, and the center bogie has inward facing seats:

I believe it was a requirement from the Ontario government that to meet the new disability laws in effect in... 2025? (Cant remember the date) that they had to be 100% low floor. Both the streetcars and the LRT systems.

 

[Amare]

I believe it was a requirement from the Ontario government that to meet the new disability laws in effect in... 2025? (Cant remember the date) that they had to be 100% low floor. Both the streetcars and the LRT systems.

It was the TTC that decided to go with the 100% low floor vehicles. Transit City was designed around that in mind as well (remember Transit City was a City of Toronto initiative). When Rob Ford decided to scrap the whole plan and Metrolinx picked up the reminiscences of the plan, the 100% vehicle design was never changed. The TTC could have gone with a 85%, 90%, etc... low-floor streetcar but for whatever reason they were convinced 100% low-floor was the only right decision. Metrolinx could have done the same, but for whatever reason they didn't change the design.

The AODA doesnt specifiy vehicle heights per se; so even if an LRV was 80% low-floor, that would be fine as well as the stations was designed with accessibility in mind.

 

[Tuck]

Hate to say it, but iON along the street most definitely feels like the Spadina line or the 512. Too many stops at intersections and really bad dwell times. Hopefully things improve. That being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this type of service. Streetcars are vital to a transportation network, and writing them off as a lesser form of transportation is nuts.

Depends what the goal is. Streetcars in great in toronto, but they arent being sold as the spine of the city's transportation network, nor should they be.

This type of service is a choice. We are spending hundred of millions or billions of dollars on new infrastructure and then intentionally gimping it.

If the goal is to get people out of their cars, this is a bad way to do it. If the goal is just to replace bus service with a slightly better alternative, well, I guess thats okay. But its a very expensive way to do it.

Also, low floor vehicles don't do much for AODA compliance when you board them from platforms. Except maybe a slightly easier/shorter ramp for those in wheelchairs. They do however ruin the circulation of passengers within the vehicle, which I'm fairly confident is a pretty lousy tradeoff. And as others have stated, a hybrid (~70% offers much the same benefits but with improved circulation)

 

[Streety McCarface]

Depends what the goal is. Streetcars in great in toronto, but they arent being sold as the spine of the city's transportation network, nor should they be.

This type of service is a choice. We are spending hundred of millions or billions of dollars on new infrastructure and then intentionally gimping it.

If the goal is to get people out of their cars, this is a bad way to do it. If the goal is just to replace bus service with a slightly better alternative, well, I guess thats okay. But its a very expensive way to do it.

The goal was to reduce urban sprawl and densify the central transit corridor. It was also built to account for future demand and strengthen a future grid network. All things I'd argue iON has successfully done. What's left is improving service along the corridor, speeding up trains, and making it more attractive to riders. The line has made a previously direct bus trip a now faster bus to train trip. I am really happy with the results, but still believe things could be vastly improved. If 20K riders are supposed to use the line by the end of the year, then the line should be seeing better signal priority, and speed increases. Finch sees 40K passengers per year, the goal of the LRT is to improve capacity, it should be giving priority to riders.

 

[KevinT]

Just as an aside you can see in this picture where Siemens crammed the motors for those LRV's (this is why nobody really uses these trains). As well the trucks are located under the articulated joints instead of under the cars themselves like with our LRV's. This does mean that segment length is shorter for balance issues but ultimately the length of each individual segment doesn't matter when compared to the overall length of the train.
View attachment 193374

The kinematics of this are horrible, they have to operate as servo drives with precise control over wheel position to maintain the bogie angle with respect to the individual sections. I'd be surprised if they could even be towed without power.

I'm glad we didn't pay for anything like this.

Edit: Did some digging, there are mechanical steering linkages, but there's still fine grained and finicky motor control to balance torque when the vehicles are running straight.

 

[robmausser]

The kinematics of this are horrible, they have to operate as servo drives with precise control over wheel position to maintain the bogie angle with respect to the individual sections. I'd be surprised if they could even be towed without power.

I'm glad we didn't pay for anything like this.

Edit: Did some digging, there are mechanical steering linkages, but there's still fine grained and finicky motor control to balance torque when the vehicles are running straight.

It seems like an over-engineered solution to a problem that really didnt exist in the first place to be honest.

All for a slightly more spacious cabin. Wow.