[reaperexpress]

Why wouldn't they be able to have level boarding all along the corridor? Just have the roadway raise up to level boarding height at the stop., and add a tactile strip so people don't tumble off it.

Because it's physically impossible with the current streetcars. They don't have load levelling, which means that the level of the floor changes depending on how many people are in the streetcar.

They deliberately removed load levelling from the specification for downtown streetcars because it allowed the floors to be lower than the standard Flexity versions. (e.g. the ones used on Line 5, which do have load levelling). It was considered more important to minimize the height than to permit level boarding given how many stops involve boarding from ground level without any platform whatsoever.

 

[max]

Staying true to "Toronto half-assed" style, they are only replacing the missing bollards, so now there is a hodgepodge at most stops, some with three white and one orange, some with three orange and one white... etc.

Why would you replace any of the flexiposts that haven't yet been knocked down? Obviously, those ones are noticed by drivers and therefore have no issues with being run into! /s

 

[smallspy]

Because it's physically impossible with the current streetcars. They don't have load levelling, which means that the level of the floor changes depending on how many people are in the streetcar.

They deliberately removed load levelling from the specification for downtown streetcars because it allowed the floors to be lower than the standard Flexity versions. (e.g. the ones used on Line 5, which do have load levelling). It was considered more important to minimize the height than to permit level boarding given how many stops involve boarding from ground level without any platform whatsoever.

I think that you're confusing some terms here.

The new streetcars absolutely, positively have load levelling - if they didn't, the suspension would bottom out with a full load, and wouldn't compress at all when the cars were empty. Load levelling simply adjusts the amount of spring air within the suspension.

What they do not have is a system that always ensures that the door thresholds are at the same exact height at every stop, that is true.

But also, to say that cars are not capable of level boarding is not completely true either. Level boarding means that the doorway threshold is within a tolerance to the platform. So long as the platform can be built up to a height that allows it to meet the threshold within that tolerance, there is no step for people to board the cars.

Dan

 

[daptive]

"…they do not have is a system that always ensures that the door thresholds are at the same exact height at every stop…Level boarding means that the doorway threshold is within a tolerance to the platform. So long as the platform can be built up to a height that allows it to meet the threshold…"

So it's still unlikely that level boarding can be achieved? What happens if the streetcar height adjustments fall outside the threshold range of the platform? Can a system offer pseudo-level boarding, where sometimes it is level sometimes it isn't!

 

[T3G]

So it's still unlikely that level boarding can be achieved? What happens if the streetcar height adjustments fall outside the threshold range of the platform? Can a system offer pseudo-level boarding, where sometimes it is level sometimes it isn't!

Hey, if it works in London...

 

[smallspy]

So it's still unlikely that level boarding can be achieved? What happens if the streetcar height adjustments fall outside the threshold range of the platform? Can a system offer pseudo-level boarding, where sometimes it is level sometimes it isn't!

I don't think it's unlikely, it should be able to be done. After all, this was the exact issue with the TRs when they started in service - their load levelling systems weren't up to snuff and so trains would have their door thresholds too high or too low.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

Hey, if it works in London...

It doesn't work in London. They've needed to retrofit nearly every platform with a hump where the platform is actually at the right height for at least one of the doors.

People requiring level boarding often need to call ahead of time so the station staff can bring out a ramp to help them on or off the train. That's a far bigger hassle for those passengers than the turn-up-and-go accessibility we currently have on comventional TTC routes.

 

[T3G]

It doesn't work in London. They've needed to retrofit nearly every platform with a hump where the platform is actually at the right height for at least one of the doors.

People requiring level boarding often need to call ahead of time so the station staff can bring out a ramp to help them on or off the train. That's a far bigger hassle for those passengers than the turn-up-and-go accessibility we currently have on comventional TTC routes.

To clarify, I was being facetious, I don't actually believe that system works.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think that you're confusing some terms here.

The new streetcars absolutely, positively have load levelling - if they didn't, the suspension would bottom out with a full load, and wouldn't compress at all when the cars were empty. Load levelling simply adjusts the amount of spring air within the suspension.

What they do not have is a system that always ensures that the door thresholds are at the same exact height at every stop, that is true.

But also, to say that cars are not capable of level boarding is not completely true either. Level boarding means that the doorway threshold is within a tolerance to the platform. So long as the platform can be built up to a height that allows it to meet the threshold within that tolerance, there is no step for people to board the cars.

Thank you for the correction. When I was told that the streetcars do not maintain a consistent ride height I incorrectly assumed that they lack load levelling. I understand now that what they lack is load levelling which maintains a consistent floor height.

Certainly there is some variation with any system, but the key question is whether the current streetcars could provide a consistent-enough floor height to meet accessibility requirements. If the vertical misalignment is too large, some people would still need a ramp to board or alight, but the current ramps are unable to deploy for a platform at the same height. The two stages of the ramp are designed for curb height platforms, and ground level respectively.

I don't think it's unlikely, it should be able to be done. After all, this was the exact issue with the TRs when they started in service - their load levelling systems weren't up to snuff and so trains would have their door thresholds too high or too low.

The difference being that the TRs were always specified to maintain a constant floor height. That was never a requirement for the downtown Flexity streetcars - there was no snuff to be up to

It would be great to find out that level boarding can be achieved with the current cars, but I don't have high hopes that it's the case.

Regardless, we should definitely be building raised platforms (at sidewalk height) wherever possible. The smaller stage of the ramp is quicker to deploy than the long stage to ground level. But mostly, if we have a large enough number of raised platforms, there will be a much stronger case for specifying constant-level suspension in the next generation of streetcars, even if that means that the floor is higher off the ground.

On this topic, the trams in Rotterdam do have level boarding at nearly all stops. Here's a photo from inside:

Here's how the stops look. The tram platform is about double the height of a sidewalk, but that's still not very high. The ramps to/from sidewalk level are quite modest.

 

[robmausser]

Thank you for the correction. When I was told that the streetcars do not maintain a consistent ride height I incorrectly assumed that they lack load levelling. I understand now that what they lack is load levelling which maintains a consistent floor height.

Certainly there is some variation with any system, but the key question is whether the current streetcars could provide a consistent-enough floor height to meet accessibility requirements. If the vertical misalignment is too large, some people would still need a ramp to board or alight, but the current ramps are unable to deploy for a platform at the same height. The two stages of the ramp are designed for curb height platforms, and ground level respectively.


The difference being that the TRs were always specified to maintain a constant floor height. That was never a requirement for the downtown Flexity streetcars - there was no snuff to be up to

It would be great to find out that level boarding can be achieved with the current cars, but I don't have high hopes that it's the case.

Regardless, we should definitely be building raised platforms (at sidewalk height) wherever possible. The smaller stage of the ramp is quicker to deploy than the long stage to ground level. But mostly, if we have a large enough number of raised platforms, there will be a much stronger case for specifying constant-level suspension in the next generation of streetcars, even if that means that the floor is higher off the ground.

On this topic, the trams in Rotterdam do have level boarding at nearly all stops. Here's a photo from inside:
View attachment 436622

Here's how the stops look. The tram platform is about double the height of a sidewalk, but that's still not very high. The ramps to/from sidewalk level are quite modest.
View attachment 436623
View attachment 436624

You have to be careful with adding level platforms without load levelling. An interesting thing happens when you make the difference in height between two floors (the streetcar and the platform) close but not exactly level. People actually trip more than if there was a more obvious step between the streetcar and the ground, because they assume its level or cant see that its a few inches off, enough to catch their feet and fall.

So you make it better for people in mobility devices, but then you risk having a bunch of old people face plant when they try to walk on what they assume is a level platform.

A good analogy is if you've ever had to walk up or down stairs that were not to the required code heights, but instead closer together. Its maddening!

 

[felix123]

It doesn't work in London. They've needed to retrofit nearly every platform with a hump where the platform is actually at the right height for at least one of the doors.

People requiring level boarding often need to call ahead of time so the station staff can bring out a ramp to help them on or off the train. That's a far bigger hassle for those passengers than the turn-up-and-go accessibility we currently have on comventional TTC routes.

This is how it works on Sydney Trains as well, although you don't need to call in advance. You do need to find a train guard, who are usually located on every platform, and ask them to bring out a ramp, which they quickly set up and take down when your train arrives. This will probably never be completely resolved, as the city is moving towards retrofitting a small part of its network as an accessible metro, and building new metro lines. There are hundreds of trainsets in use with varying boarding heights.

 

[daptive]

The westbound stop at Peter St was moved back to nearside and the raised plastic platform (which was falling apart) has been removed. They also added a curb cut to the new stop but no painted lines, tactile markers, or even flexi-posts. Either they'll be added back or this is the truest sign of the city forgetting about the King Street Transit Priority.

 

[turbanplanner]

View attachment 440396

The westbound stop at Peter St was moved back to nearside and the raised plastic platform (which was falling apart) has been removed. They also added a curb cut to the new stop but no painted lines, tactile markers, or even flexi-posts. Either they'll be added back or this is the truest sign of the city forgetting about the King Street Transit Priority.

Doesn't that little sign on the right say stop not in use?

 

[daptive]

Doesn't that little sign on the right say stop not in use?

Correct, this is the old farside stop that I'm saying has now been moved nearside—but the new stop also doesn't have any of the "protections" found on other King St stops. I presume condo construction caused the move.

 

[reaperexpress]

View attachment 440396

The westbound stop at Peter St was moved back to nearside and the raised plastic platform (which was falling apart) has been removed. They also added a curb cut to the new stop but no painted lines, tactile markers, or even flexi-posts. Either they'll be added back or this is the truest sign of the city forgetting about the King Street Transit Priority.

That's odd, what was the stated reason for the relocation? The far-side location definitely works better for the signal priority because the signal has a better idea when the streetcar will actually wish to proceed through the intersection.