[Surrealplaces]

Thanks. By "like Centre St" I mean at-grade down a relatively narrow ROW that is the busiest bus corridor in a city. I really appreciate the examples though and look forward to some street view exploration (particularly Valencia because I spent a couple weeks there 20 years ago). Quick follow-up question: how many of those went to absurd lengths to grade separate a long section of track?

We always end up on the LF vs HF debate, but the complaint is really about the incongruity of the whole design. LF at street level is totally fine - especially if the ridership case isn't a slam dunk and you don't need to max out frequency. It's also great to invest in as much grade separation as possible - especially if the ridership case is really strong and it lets you move lots of people efficiently.

But our qualifying statements are reversed and we're spending silly money to facilitate compromised design without reaping substantial benefits (certainly not the degree we would with 8 Ave subway or fully automate north line).

This is kind of where I fall with respect to the green line. I like both HF and LF for different reasons, but the incongruity of the whole design makes it hard to pick one. My main nitpick about LF is the handling large volumes of people. On the low floors systems I've been on, it didn't take a lot of people within the LRV to make it awkward for moving people around within the LRV, due to there being two different height variations and the arrangement of seating, etc...This was noticeable on Ottawa LRVs that weren't as busy as our LRT cars get. I can't imagine some of these busy lines in places like New York, or Tokyo where dozens of people are entering and exiting in a short period.

There are obvious benefits to low floor as well, especially as already mentioned, it works nicely for the Centre Street portion.

 

[ahuch]

The LF vs HF argument could go on forever, but I think the craziest part to me is a new train line going into service in the 2030s with drivers with the degree of automation we can achieve these days.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I can't imagine some of these busy lines

Took the low floor in Nice to the local Soccer Stadium for a Ligue 1 match. Never felt more claustrophobic on transit in my life. Mostly because, like you say, there is very poor circulation. They actually ended up having a door issue on the train and that made it that much worse as doors would or would not open randomly. I digress, knowing this will be the main line feeding the events centre, I assume there will be similar issues of crowding being an issue.

Community integration can be done well using any LF, HF, or automated system. As we know, since we're on this forum, there is always a design solution to almost any problem. I do think it is a little funny that sections that, in theory, are best suited to LF are not part of the first phase: 52nd Street in the SE to Seton and the whole portion north of 16th Ave N. We're multiple phases away from the benefits of our chosen rolling stock.

Unless they do my idea and run at grade in the beltline and parts of the downtown. Which of course is the best idea I've seen (tongue in cheek).

 

[InfrastructureEnthusiast]

There are obvious benefits to low floor as well, especially as already mentioned, it works nicely for the Centre Street portion.

This is the viewpoint I just can't wrap my head around. While I get that some like the streetcar esthetic, I don't see how running a cross town commuter line slower with smaller capacity cars is a win?
Centre st plan as is would also have more grade crossings than any other leg of the system, reducing reliability.

For comparison, the surrey skytrain extension is roughly the same distance as centre st from 16av to the end of line, at a cost of 6 billion. That might be more than the cost of the LF streetcar plan, but that could be offset by reduced operational costs and less disruptive road works.

Personally I like the idea of having the trains elevated completely out of the way, and a centre st with reduced traffic, wider sidewalks and maybe room for bike lanes instead of a much bigger flexibus running at grade in everyone's way.

There's also a good psychological effect of having rapid transit elevated along a computer corridor like that. When drivers are stopped at a light and see the train blazing by overhead, it does a lot more to make the service appealing than adding an at grade dividing wall to the neighborhood would.

That all said, here's a GL idea that might satisfy both tunnel and streetcar enthusiasts without compromising the primary purpose of a cross town commuter line.

- GL elevated through DT, into the hill and then elevated again by 16av
- Move RL to 8av subway
- Use freed 7av capacity to run a central streetcar circulator, with 6st se, 17av and 11st sw rounding out the route

 

[Red Star]

Took the low floor in Nice to the local Soccer Stadium for a Ligue 1 match. Never felt more claustrophobic on transit in my life. Mostly because, like you say, there is very poor circulation. They actually ended up having a door issue on the train and that made it that much worse as doors would or would not open randomly. I digress, knowing this will be the main line feeding the events centre, I assume there will be similar issues of crowding being an issue.

Community integration can be done well using any LF, HF, or automated system. As we know, since we're on this forum, there is always a design solution to almost any problem. I do think it is a little funny that sections that, in theory, are best suited to LF are not part of the first phase: 52nd Street in the SE to Seton and the whole portion north of 16th Ave N. We're multiple phases away from the benefits of our chosen rolling stock.

Unless they do my idea and run at grade in the beltline and parts of the downtown. Which of course is the best idea I've seen (tongue in cheek).

I had a similar experience. I took the ION LRT in Kitchener/Waterloo. The system overall is fine, but the aisles between the seating was very narrow and it makes the car feel small and cramped. Also, the floor had weird elevation rises and dips.

I think the Greenline will have the same issues too. This the interior of the CAF Urbo1000:

 

[Surrealplaces]

This is the viewpoint I just can't wrap my head around. While I get that some like the streetcar esthetic, I don't see how running a cross town commuter line slower with smaller capacity cars is a win?
Centre st plan as is would also have more grade crossings than any other leg of the system, reducing reliability.

For comparison, the surrey skytrain extension is roughly the same distance as centre st from 16av to the end of line, at a cost of 6 billion. That might be more than the cost of the LF streetcar plan, but that could be offset by reduced operational costs and less disruptive road works.

Personally I like the idea of having the trains elevated completely out of the way, and a centre st with reduced traffic, wider sidewalks and maybe room for bike lanes instead of a much bigger flexibus running at grade in everyone's way.

There's also a good psychological effect of having rapid transit elevated along a computer corridor like that. When drivers are stopped at a light and see the train blazing by overhead, it does a lot more to make the service appealing than adding an at grade dividing wall to the neighborhood would.

That all said, here's a GL idea that might satisfy both tunnel and streetcar enthusiasts without compromising the primary purpose of a cross town commuter line.

- GL elevated through DT, into the hill and then elevated again by 16av
- Move RL to 8av subway
- Use freed 7av capacity to run a central streetcar circulator, with 6st se, 17av and 11st sw rounding out the route

You won't get an argument out of me for having rail transit grade separated. But I think at grade, LF cars would work fine for the centre street section, kind of similar to the Toronto streetcar lines, but mimicking the Toronto street car lines wouldn't work with frequencies for the line as whole, thus my comment about the incongruity of the line as a whole. For the sake of having the line congruent as whole, I would prefer the higher speed model LRT styled model.

 

[whatchyyc]

I had a similar experience. I took the ION LRT in Kitchener/Waterloo. The system overall is fine, but the aisles between the seating was very narrow and it makes the car feel small and cramped. Also, the floor had weird elevation rises and dips.

I think the Greenline will have the same issues too. This the interior of the CAF Urbo1000:

View attachment 691456

Tbf, the segments with the doors are completely open. But on that note I was pretty surprised by how open Edmonton's new Hyundai-Rotem LRVs are:

I hope our next batch can follow suit
edit: actually I remember hearing that our specific LRVs are the 100X variant with solid axles, that probably limits the kind of open layout that Hyundai can get away with for the slower Valley Line

 

[kora]

Edmonton going back to the fabric. Comfy, but how is it for cleanliness? Do they steam clean that?

 

[whatchyyc]

Edmonton going back to the fabric. Comfy, but how is it for cleanliness? Do they steam clean that?

Valley Line was clean looking enough, but the fabric on the bus was putrid. I hope TransEd gives them a steam clean often but at the same time I doubt it

 

[darwink]

Centre st plan as is would also have more grade crossings than any other leg of the system, reducing reliability.

Maybe? But not as many as the gut would think driving up the street.

Proof will be in the doing but I think north of 20th the green line plan makes sense. It just doesn’t feel right. But data convinced me otherwise.