[sixrings]

I hope we don't build any additional low-floor lines. I'm kind of hoping the REM / HART / Ontario Line will be the start of the trend of North American cities building automated light metro. We do seem to follow trends here, for a long time it was LRT everywhere for every purpose!

What is wrong with low floor lrts. The c train in Calgary has needless stairs and long ramps.

 

[SashaLemon]

What is wrong with low floor lrts. The c train in Calgary has needless stairs and long ramps.

1. Speed
2. Harder to maintain
3. Less capacity
4. We seem to like to use them in places that make absolutely no sense (Line 5, Ottawa O-Train)

And then, in the case of Line 5, we build a mostly grade separated line, and then slap on a little streetcar section which requires the whole thing to use trams with drivers instead of an automated metro.

 

[Sunnyside]

I hope we don't build any additional low-floor lines. I'm kind of hoping the REM / HART / Ontario Line will be the start of the trend of North American cities building automated light metro. We do seem to follow trends here, for a long time it was LRT everywhere for every purpose!

Completely agree. That's why I said 'not an option', because it introduces a need to basically operate another LRT-subway hybrid..

Automated Light Metro seems to be the way forward, as it should be. The Ontario Government has been trying to figure out ' medium'-capacity transit for at least 50 years now. Let's finally embrace the best technology for it (not that the OL is 'medium capacity' but it's based on that kind of system).

 

[11th]

What is wrong with low floor lrts. The c train in Calgary has needless stairs and long ramps.

The long ramps/stairs are there because pedestrain cannot cross the tracks at some stations. There would be long ramps regardless of low floor or high floor vehicles.
If it's at-grade, they aren't much longer than the usual ramps.

39 Avenue station:
https://goo.gl/maps/JZ6S9Vnp2jkXmeqPA

 

[sixrings]

1. Speed
2. Harder to maintain
3. Less capacity
4. We seem to like to use them in places that make absolutely no sense (Line 5, Ottawa O-Train)

And then, in the case of Line 5, we build a mostly grade separated line, and then slap on a little streetcar section which requires the whole thing to use trams with drivers instead of an automated metro.

How is a low floor lrt slower than a high floor lrt? Do you have stats?

 

[SashaLemon]

How is a low floor lrt slower than a high floor lrt? Do you have stats?

They aren't exactly faster in all cases, I probably shouldn't have said that. But its interesting how you singled out that point instead of the other ones, which are actually legit.

 

[sixrings]

They aren't exactly faster in all cases, I probably shouldn't have said that. But it’s interesting how you singled out that point instead of the other ones, which are actually legit.

The low floor is easier to access for disabled people. That’s a big difference for me. I’m not old. I am abled. But I work somewhere that isn’t wheel chair accessible and it is the one thing I wish I could change.

 

[SashaLemon]

The low floor is easier to access for disabled people. That’s a big difference for me. I’m not old. I am abled. But I work somewhere that isn’t wheel chair accessible and it is the one thing I wish I could change.

Wow, this looks *incredibly* hard to get to...

Also, what are you talking about when the vast majority of the Line 5 LRT stations (and probably the entire extension) needs elevators to access it, meaning it being low floor is completely irrelevant for accessibility.

 

[T3G]

How is a low floor lrt slower than a high floor lrt? Do you have stats?

Ever ride a Flexity car on a curve? They can't do much faster than walking distance if they want to avoid jerking people about. This is because the car body encloses the trucks, and they have much less room for movement, unlike high floor cars which have a near full range of motion.

It's not so much an issue on the legacy network, where speed wouldn't happen anyway, but if you're on a rapid transit line, you want vehicles that can negotiate curves quickly.

All that being said, I am not a fan of the light metro being pushed everywhere either. It has its place, but so does LRT, and it seems rather shortsighted to me to push light metros where they don't belong just so that we don't have to worry about labour costs.

 

[Voltz]

in the case of Line 5, we build a mostly grade separated line, and then slap on a little streetcar section which requires the whole thing to use trams with drivers instead of an automated metro

It started as a mostly street level line with tunnel where needed, and then became the opposite after a series of political dithering, foot dragging, delaying and interference.

 

[SashaLemon]

It started as a mostly street level line with tunnel where needed, and then became the opposite after a series of political dithering, foot dragging, delaying and interference.

At the stage where it became the opposite they should of switched around the station design and rolling stock.

 

[nfitz]

Ever ride a Flexity car on a curve? They can't do much faster than walking distance if they want to avoid jerking people about. This is because the car body encloses the trucks, and they have much less room for movement, unlike high floor cars which have a near full range of motion.

Have you ridden the high-floor Canada line in a curve. They are also surprisingly slow. It's not the height of the vehicle, so much as the tightness of the curves. It's certainly not what you'd expect on modern line.re either. It has its place, but so does LRT, and it seems rather shortsighted to me to push light metros where they don't belong just so that we don't have to worry about labour costs.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Voltz]

At the stage where it became the opposite they should of switched around the station design and rolling stock.

The stations were largely built by the time the west section was put underground.

 

[sixrings]

Wow, this looks *incredibly* hard to get to...
View attachment 455608View attachment 455609

Also, what are you talking about when the vast majority of the Line 5 LRT stations (and probably the entire extension) needs elevators to access it, meaning it being low floor is completely irrelevant for accessibility.

And those stations are significantly larger than they need to be if it’s low floor. If you put a lrt in a row the station sizes matter. The ctrain runs downtown in a non car area and in the suburbs more like a go train. Maybe you just don’t like the style of how we’re building lrt (in rows) more than it is about low or high floor.

 

[SashaLemon]

And those stations are significantly larger than they need to be if it’s low floor. If you put a lrt in a row the station sizes matter. The ctrain runs downtown in a non car area and in the suburbs more like a go train. Maybe you just don’t like the style of how we’re building lrt (in rows) more than it is about low or high floor.

Still not touching on passenger capacity.