Go Elevated or try for Underground?

  • Work with the province and go with the Elevated option

    Votes: 57 69.5%

  • Try another approach and go for Underground option

    Votes: 22 26.8%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Go with a BRT solution

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Total voters
    82
lemongrab said:
It brings me back to the point that we're not really maximizing the opportunities that a low-floor tram presents...because it turns out it doesn't really make great transit? But it sure looks neat in Portland and Bilbao!
Click to expand...
Can you name a city anywhere in the world that opened a high floor LRT line (that wasn't connected to a legacy system) in the past decade? The past 25 years?

What do you see as the main advantage of using last century's technology -- having to build larger, more expensive stations or having to custom-order bespoke trains rather than standard models?
 
Dārayavauš said:
Are we going to be waiting until 2027 for a decision on the downtown though? I doubt the (elevated) Events Centre station plans wouldn’t be solidified by then.
Click to expand...
I think 4th Street SE (I refuse to call it Grand Central until Grand Central is anything other than an idea is some people's heads) might have to be elevated. Looking at how they've divided up the line, the section that is closest to the station is an elevated guideway. Maybe there's space to run the line down to street level? Could also do so after the station? I recall Grand Central not requiring the same clearance as Sunalta but I'm forgetting why.
 
ByeByeBaby said:
or having to custom-order bespoke trains rather than standard models?
Click to expand...

All LRVs are bespoke. Calgary has a large enough fleet to not have scale issues even on relatively small orders.

Low floor LRVs are more complicated, more expensive, and lower capacity.

The station size savings (no ramps) you have the tradeoff of longer trains.

Low floor LRVs are great. But they aren’t the best for every application. Ontario uses broadly similar models as trams, on street LRT, an attempt at Calgary style LRT, and automated rapid transit.



 
badc0ffee said:
Toronto had the SRT (high floor SkyTrain), which is gone, and now they're building the Ontario Line, which I think is going to also be a high-floor light metro?

They kind of look like the REM vehicles in Montreal: https://www.metrolinx.com/en/projec...line/what-were-building/trains-and-technology
Click to expand...

Automated or not is what the green line decision should have always been about. It's shameful how the city and council mislead voters with a false dichotomy of two systems that provide lousy service levels and high operations costs as some sort of relevant choice.

Wouldn't bother me in the least if the Spanish trains the city ordered fell off the ship and sunk to the bottom of the sea. They'd make for some great scuba exploration!
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Can you name a city anywhere in the world that opened a high floor LRT line (that wasn't connected to a legacy system) in the past decade? The past 25 years?

What do you see as the main advantage of using last century's technology -- having to build larger, more expensive stations or having to custom-order bespoke trains rather than standard models?
Click to expand...
With lower platforms and a tighter turning radius, the benefit of low-floor LRT is that it can integrate well into an existing streetscape. For the NC portion of the Greenline a low-floor LRT is perfect.

However, the SE LRT has long sections where it's runs through industrial land and where it runs parallel to a heavy freight corridor, so you kind of lose the benefits of a low-floor LRT.

The benefits of a high-floor LRT is:
-Higher Speeds
-Higher passenger capacity
-Easier maintenance (Motor and chassis is more accessible)

If designed properly, a high-floor LRT system is very beneficial as it acts like a 'Dollar Store Metro system'.
 
Last edited:
ByeByeBaby said:
Can you name a city anywhere in the world that opened a high floor LRT line (that wasn't connected to a legacy system) in the past decade? The past 25 years?

What do you see as the main advantage of using last century's technology -- having to build larger, more expensive stations or having to custom-order bespoke trains rather than standard models?
Click to expand...
The REM in Montreal is a high-floor LRT that has overhead catenary lines. The first line opened in 2023.

1761331293083.png

2023
 
ByeByeBaby said:
Can you name a city anywhere in the world that opened a high floor LRT line (that wasn't connected to a legacy system) in the past decade? The past 25 years?

What do you see as the main advantage of using last century's technology -- having to build larger, more expensive stations or having to custom-order bespoke trains rather than standard models?
Click to expand...
I favour automated, particularly for the north. Wouldn't the Canada Line be an answer to your question?

I do think high-floor for SE might have been a better value proposition for the whole system if it facilitated/prompted some of the following:
- build 8 Ave subway for red line (would have lined up perfectly with Art Commons and current Stephen Ave project)
- build underpass for the green line to get to 7 Ave via 5th St SE (duplicate or in conjunction with 6 St underpass)
- which should mean more money to get going sooner with fully automated north line and/or build further to the SE

Lots of tradeoffs to consider, but the key thing is it would have set up better timelines to actually get the ball rolling. SE was supposedly close to "shovel-ready"; 8 Ave subway would have probably taken a bit longer, so maybe we end up with a few years where red line south terminates at City Hall (or hopefully at least down to 2nd St) while the other 4 lines run on 7th. And North Central would have had the longest lead time.


I'll turn it around and ask what city has built anything like Centre St recently? Some stretches of Edm's Valley Line? Generally less dense and they opted for just 500m of tunnel to climb the hill before running at-grade in DT. Do they have plans to extend further west at-grade?

Portland's E Burnside St looks very similar; built in the 80s but still looks like lower density than we have today on Centre. Their westside line from the 90s also has a similar stretch at the far outskirts. Looks like everything else they've built has had more exclusive ROW (like what we've typically done)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top