[nfitz]

You won’t find anybody in the GTA ever supporting LRTs ever again, what’s what I’m happy about.

It's years too soon to draw such conclusions. My guess is that Finch West won't be the last LRT line in the GTA, and that we'll see LRT on Eglinton, Hurontario, and maybe even Hamilton. If over the next couple of years they get their act together, and LRT delivers the original promised travel times, then I doubt few would worry about the initial start-up.

Do you still diss the Bloor-Danforth subway, despite the troubled operations in the first 6 months of opening? There seems to be enough support for the LRT in Waterloo. And Edmonton/Calgary.

 

[urbanclient]

It's years too soon to draw such conclusions. My guess is that Finch West won't be the last LRT line in the GTA, and that we'll see LRT on Eglinton, Hurontario, and maybe even Hamilton. If over the next couple of years they get their act together, and LRT delivers the original promised travel times, then I doubt few would worry about the initial start-up.

Do you still diss the Bloor-Danforth subway, despite the troubled operations in the first 6 months of opening? There seems to be enough support for the LRT in Waterloo. And Edmonton/Calgary.

Finch West, Eglinton, Hurontario, and Waterfront East and West will and should happen. It's certainly too late to stop 3 of them, so let's not debate that strawman. And Waterfront actually makes a lot of sense as it expands the existing streetcar network for relatively little cost (I hope). After that, there simply is no room within the City of Toronto to feasibly fit a Line 6 type tram on a corridor with the ridership to justify modal upgrade.

More grade separated routes like on the hydro corridors are possible. In which case, I would argue a high floor tram like Calgary or an automated metro like REM in Montreal would make more sense. Low floor trams are a maintenance nightmare.

 

[EnviroTO]

The headlines speak for themselves. You won’t find anybody in the GTA ever supporting LRTs ever again, what’s what I’m happy about.

The issue is the low prioritization of "providing good service" over other considerations, and the willingness to accept excuses for not providing it. We rip up streetcar routes for reconstruction and are simply asked to accept that they aren't going to do this at night or piece by piece to minimize the impact to us. We have speed reduction zones all over the subway network that take months to clear. Elevators and escalators out of service not for days but for months and years. Even if they were to fix everything, subways would still be going slower than they used to due to calculations that increasingly focus on risk reduction, cost reduction, maintenance reduction, and in the case of the subway probably increased uptime (not something that seems to be even a consideration for streetcars), above service quality and speed.

Being against LRTs is like being against blue coloured trains.

Possibly valid points based on perspective:
- Being against LRTs in shared right of ways or poorly protected right of ways.
- Being against LRTs not getting signal priority.
- Being against LRTs that don't reach a certain average speed.
- Being against LRTs that don't support X capacity.
- Being against spending X on LRTs and getting service quality Y.
- Being against LRTs that are poorly constructed and barely able to handle the environment they operate in.

Points that make no sense:
- LRTs suck.
- Metros/Subways are better.
- Vehicles of X colour go faster.
- If you slap a metro/subway label on a rail vehicle it performs better.

Why? Because there is no clear difference between an LRT and a metro. There is no rule book that declares the minimum properties of a metro or the maximum properties of an LRT. There are vehicles that meet the FRA (US) / TC (Canada) specifications for heavy rail that are clearly "heavy rail" or trains, and there is everything else.

 

[sixrings]

Besides the 'will it fit' issue with potential future LRTs in Toronto... The bar is so low for Metrolinx and Canadian industry that we simply cannot expect high quality, reliable vehicles and wayside infrastructure. That low floor trams are inherently less reliable than high floor trams to begin with is made worse by this tofu-dreg quality.

Somebody bought a yacht and the general public got a turd.

AI Overview

+7

No, low-floor LRTs aren't inherently less reliable; reliability depends more on design, maintenance, and operating environment, with high-floor vehicles often cited for simpler mechanics (easier bogie access, robust bogies for curves/speeds) leading to lower maintenance costs, while low-floor offers faster, step-free boarding, boosting passenger flow but sometimes involving complex floor designs and wheels integrated into the chassis, which can complicate wheel maintenance. High-floor designs excel in high-capacity, metro-like settings, while low-floor suits urban, street-running, accessibility-focused systems, but both have proven reliable when engineered well.
Why High-Floor LRVs are Often Seen as More Robust/Reliable:

• Simpler Mechanics:Traditional bogies (wheel assemblies) are easier to access and maintain, especially for wheel/bogie work.
• Better for Curves/High Speed:More traditional wheel/bogie setups handle curves and high speeds with less stress than some low-floor designs where wheels are fixed to the body.
• High Capacity: More internal space and door capacity suit busy, metro-style operations.

Why Low-Floor LRVs Can Be Perceived as Less Reliable (or More Complex):

• Maintenance Complexity: Lifting the entire chassis to service wheels/bogies can be expensive and complex.
• Integrated Design:Wheels are part of the body, potentially leading to issues with turns and stress.
• Schedule Impact: If lifts/ramps are used, they can add time and potential points of failure, though good design minimizes this.

Benefits of Low-Floor for Reliability (in Specific Ways):

• Faster Boarding:Step-free access significantly speeds up passenger loading/unloading, improving schedule adherence (fewer delays).
• Accessibility:Essential for wheelchairs, reducing reliance on complex lifts.

The Verdict:
It's a trade-off: High-floor often means easier mechanicalupkeep and robustness for heavy-duty use, while low-floor prioritizes operationalspeed and accessibility for urban environments, though potentially with higher maintenance costs for complex parts. Modern systems use both effectively, with reliability depending heavily on design, infrastructure (platform height), and maintenance practices.

 

[JSF-1]

Station/stop construction can create trade offs between high-floor and low-floor LRV's. If you're going to build an LRT line that is entirely grade separated then there is no reason not to use high-floor LRV's (cough, cough Ottawa). Once you add street running into the mix things do get a bit more complicated since constructing high-level platforms on a road median can be more challenging; for example how far back from the intersection do the platforms need to be to accommodate a wheel-chair ramp. Of course it is not impossible to do as seen by the downtown section of the C-Train or the A Line in LA. Nobody would deny that low-floor is the best and only real solution for the streetcars downtown but for the Finch West and Crosstown the trade-offs between low-floor and high-floor LRV's is worthy of debate. You could also make the case that high-floor LRT makes it easier to convert a line to light-metro in the future since the infrastructure was built with high-floor vehicles in mind from the start (any street running sections notwithstanding).

 

[urbanclient]

AI Overview
View attachment 710356
View attachment 710358
View attachment 710357
+7



View attachment 710359
No, low-floor LRTs aren't inherently less reliable; reliability depends more on design, maintenance, and operating environment, with high-floor vehicles often cited for simpler mechanics (easier bogie access, robust bogies for curves/speeds) leading to lower maintenance costs, while low-floor offers faster, step-free boarding, boosting passenger flow but sometimes involving complex floor designs and wheels integrated into the chassis, which can complicate wheel maintenance. High-floor designs excel in high-capacity, metro-like settings, while low-floor suits urban, street-running, accessibility-focused systems, but both have proven reliable when engineered well.
Why High-Floor LRVs are Often Seen as More Robust/Reliable:

• Simpler Mechanics:Traditional bogies (wheel assemblies) are easier to access and maintain, especially for wheel/bogie work.
• Better for Curves/High Speed:More traditional wheel/bogie setups handle curves and high speeds with less stress than some low-floor designs where wheels are fixed to the body.
• High Capacity: More internal space and door capacity suit busy, metro-style operations.

Why Low-Floor LRVs Can Be Perceived as Less Reliable (or More Complex):

• Maintenance Complexity: Lifting the entire chassis to service wheels/bogies can be expensive and complex.
• Integrated Design:Wheels are part of the body, potentially leading to issues with turns and stress.
• Schedule Impact: If lifts/ramps are used, they can add time and potential points of failure, though good design minimizes this.

Benefits of Low-Floor for Reliability (in Specific Ways):

• Faster Boarding:Step-free access significantly speeds up passenger loading/unloading, improving schedule adherence (fewer delays).
• Accessibility:Essential for wheelchairs, reducing reliance on complex lifts.

The Verdict:
It's a trade-off: High-floor often means easier mechanicalupkeep and robustness for heavy-duty use, while low-floor prioritizes operationalspeed and accessibility for urban environments, though potentially with higher maintenance costs for complex parts. Modern systems use both effectively, with reliability depending heavily on design, infrastructure (platform height), and maintenance practices.

Are we seriously using AI slop to be a sycophant for low-floor LRTs? LLMs are programmed to go with whatever narrative you tell them, even if you add a "yes or no?" clause. That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Modern high floor trams have level boarding like any metro or subway. There are no 'steps' or need for lifts for high floor as that AI slop implies. That means the "Benefits of Low-Floor for Reliability" are nonexistent.

All other factors being the same, high floor trams are easier to maintain, cheaper to maintain, mechanically simpler, and also have larger diameter wheels for better ride and handling of adverse conditions.

Open up a new chat and ask it this: "are high floor trams more reliable and easier to maintain than low floor trams?"

 

[Bojaxs]

For folks who continue to make the argument that low floor LRT's are more accessible than high floor LRTs, tell me, does this ramp at a Manchester Tram station look unmanageable for wheel chair users?

How about the fact that high floor LRTs offer more interior space for wheel chair users?

 

[cplchanb]

well we have a polar vortex coming in starting this weekend for a week.... any bets on how many down days there will be?

 

[urbanclient]

Station/stop construction can create trade offs between high-floor and low-floor LRV's. If you're going to build an LRT line that is entirely grade separated then there is no reason not to use high-floor LRV's (cough, cough Ottawa). Once you add street running into the mix things do get a bit more complicated since constructing high-level platforms on a road median can be more challenging; for example how far back from the intersection do the platforms need to be to accommodate a wheel-chair ramp. Of course it is not impossible to do as seen by the downtown section of the C-Train or the A Line in LA. Nobody would deny that low-floor is the best and only real solution for the streetcars downtown but for the Finch West and Crosstown the trade-offs between low-floor and high-floor LRV's is worthy of debate. You could also make the case that high-floor LRT makes it easier to convert a line to light-metro in the future since the infrastructure was built with high-floor vehicles in mind from the start (any street running sections notwithstanding).

Is anyone surprised that the high floor subway is roughly 10 to 20 times more reliable per km than the low floor streetcar? Comparing general 'equipment incidents' for the subway versus only 'vehicle equipment failures' for the streetcars. The TTC methodology appears to actually favour the streetcars. https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/CEOs-Report

For folks who continue to make the argument that low floor LRT's are more accessible than high floor LRTs, tell me, does this ramp at a Manchester Tram station look unmanageable for wheel chair users?

How about the fact that high floor LRTs offer more interior space for wheel chair users?

No, no, we should stick to low floor trams because hamstringing transit for the vast majority on a daily basis makes more sense than slightly inconveniencing those with limited mobility. Because I LOVE low floor trams organically. Definitely not because big daddy Metrolinx has said they're the best and only option for two decades, and definitely not because of deeply-rooted system justification bias.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Besides the 'will it fit' issue with potential future LRTs in Toronto... The bar is so low for Metrolinx and Canadian industry that we simply cannot expect high quality, reliable vehicles and wayside infrastructure. That low floor trams are inherently less reliable than high floor trams to begin with is made worse by this tofu-dreg quality. Somebody bought a yacht and the general public got a turd.

There's nothing wrong with the vehicles, as we're buying from the same firm (Alstrom) as the best tram systems in the world, for example Alstom's Citadis trams are everywhere. It's our execution that sucks.

 

[urbanclient]

There's nothing wrong with the vehicles, as we're buying from the same firm (Alstrom) as the best tram systems in the world, for example Alstom's Citadis trams are everywhere. It's our execution that sucks.

I think you are misunderstanding my previous post:

The bar is so low for Metrolinx and Canadian industry that we simply cannot expect high quality, reliable vehicles and wayside infrastructure. That low floor trams are inherently less reliable than high floor trams to begin with is made worse by this tofu-dreg quality.

Our execution 'sucking' as you said is exactly what I already said. Furthermore, them being part of the larger Citadis family does not mean they are remotely similar in practice (see my old post on Paris T9 vs Line 6). As others have mentioned regarding Alstom Metropolis family metro rolling stock, different orders made in different countries may not share a single part. Alstom Canada is entirely different from Alstom France or Alstom India (REM).

Also, low floor vehicles are less reliable than high floor vehicles. All other factors being the same, this is a fact. They're bound to screw up a future vehicle order for a future line. All other factors being the same, high floor vehicles are a lot easier to get right, a lot harder to get wrong.

 

[nottoban]

Of course it does. Metorlinx and its entire teams are incapable of even a google search. Fire them all. And then beef up the heaters, ensure there is snow removal at intersections and install priority lights to make this thing move. Else rip it out and put buses down the centre like on Highway 7 which could have been delivered 3 years ago for less than 1/3 of the cost of this scam

Look I get it, but under AFP, you cannot specify what type of switches can or cannot be used. What is in the contract is how the infrastructure must perform. I don't know offhand what the contract specifies on the engineering side, but I can say with relative certainty that this is Mosaic thinking that they would somehow be immune to the issues Ottawa had and electing to use those switches, probably because it was the cheapest option. The good news is that these issues are almost guaranteed to be in breach of the operating/maintenance portion of the contract which therefore will incentivize them to correct it. The bad news is that one of the stated benefits of AFP was to enable private sector solutions to come to bear in situations where the public sector has been traditionally slow to react--in this case I'm quite confident TTC would've solved the snow issue in about five minutes.

 

[ownthesky]

Low floor trams are a maintenance nightmare.

Has there been any professional write-ups about this explicitly describing the differences in maintenance that warrants this constant bellyaching about low floor trams? I get the idea don't get me wrong, it should be easier to work on something when its more exposed, but this seems to be an online transit fan meme and I've never seen any actual data backing this opinion up. If Flexities are such a nightmare to work on, surely there would be some data on this from the thousands in use across the globe? Edmonton for example runs high-floor and low-floor, surely their maintenance operations have a clear view of the difference.

 

[robmausser]

There's nothing wrong with the vehicles, as we're buying from the same firm (Alstrom) as the best tram systems in the world, for example Alstom's Citadis trams are everywhere. It's our execution that sucks.

This is a gross oversimplification.

The specific Citadis variants we are using on Line 6 are used nowhere in the world BUT the Ottawa O-Train. They are a special North American variant that is much different and a new updated version than used anywhere else in the world. Go read the O-Train report that highlighted all of the massive problems with those trains. Part of that was Alstoms fault, like doing cold weather testing only in labs and never in real environments, or using wheels and bogies not desgined properly for the O-Trains specific needs (which were insane needs to be honest, it was a Metro line that wanted an LRT train)

The issue then was Metrolinx taking this overbuilt modified Citadis that Alstom built for the O-Train "metro" and then replacing the Flexity Freedoms on Finch with it. It's absolutely the wrong train for the job. Its way too heavy, can't make the sharp turns properly in the Humber trench, Finch West station portal or the Maintenance Facility. and is supposed to use 1500v like the O-Train, but the Finch line is 750v. So its underpowered ontop of being too big and heavy for a "streetcar style" LRT system.

So its multifaceted. The trains are junk from the get go, but then Metrolinx went and swapped them out on the Finch Line when they are the wrong train for the job.

EDIT: Oh look! https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/otta...some-line-1-vehicles-out-of-service-9.7054679

 

[urbanclient]

this constant bellyaching about low floor trams

Where has this bellyaching been? I frequently see tram supporters, with a vocal subset preferring low floor trams over high floor trams, much less high floor metros. To the point where people are grasping at straws and regurgitating AI.

Has there been any professional write-ups about this explicitly describing the differences in maintenance [between low and high floor trams].

Yes, actually. You'll have to wait for me to finish drafting a longer post with quotes from sources, so bear with me. In the meantime:

Is anyone surprised that the high floor subway is roughly 10 to 20 times more reliable per km than the low floor streetcar? Comparing general 'equipment incidents' for the subway versus only 'vehicle equipment failures' for the streetcars. The TTC methodology appears to actually favour the streetcars. https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/CEOs-Report

TTC data shows subway cars are much more reliable than streetcars despite having a higher daily peak utilization ratio.
Line 1: 86% or 65/76
Line 2: 75% or 46/61
Streetcars: 63% or 165/264