Why the low floor recommendation for the Valley line?

[Myrtonos]

Although I am an outsider, I wonder why there is a low floor recommendation for the Valley line?

It seems that the Valley line will be separate from others because of this. Low floor will mean fixed bogie vehicles with short sections and wheelboxes where the bogies are and control equipment in the roof.

The existing lines also have level boarding at all stations but with higher platforms the existing rolling stock has pivoting bogies, a bogie under each articulation and control equipment under the floor.
They also have higher capacity for a given train length.

Also, the new vehicles for the new line will come from a supplier, Bombardier, which still makes high floor LRVs.

Furthermore, going with a separate platform/floor height for just one new route will reduce opportunities for a large order. And it won't be possible to transfer rolling stock between different lines. Cities with smaller systems, this includes newcomers, are offered off-the-shelf designs.
Cities with large fleets and renewing them, such as Toronto, tend to make large enough orders that there are multiple bids for custom built vehicles.

Splitting the fleet into different standards compadible with different infrastructure would reduce the ability to get that kind of economics of scale.

[Coldrsx]

For the central parts of it at least, it is a far better way to incorporate it into the urban design of the area.

[Mikemike]

There are decent reasons for low floor, primarily regarding station design when the system is primarily street running. Low floor vehicles are a massive advancement for Streetcar systems, less so for rapid LRT that was already level boarding and with no wheel wells protruding into the passenger space.

It's debatable whether it would have been practical to have 3 lines running through the Jasper Avenue tunnel, but building both legs of what's now the valley line as well as the north line (Metro line is the stubby start) in the tunnel would have meant three lines in the tunnel and therefor capacity and frequency constraints on service. In that situation there's some justification for seeking the most appropriate technology for the next line. Assuming the at-grade route through downtown was the right choice then low floor probably was too, although I partial-low-floor would also have been a decent solution.

In the case of the valley line, though, Low-floor was sold as a panacea, turning a neighbourhood-dividing train track into a quaint neighbourhood feature. It appears that many other features of this design flowed from that perception.

[s211]

The low-floor pitch centres on urbanist affectations and is poorly suited for long-distances, given it's slow speed.

[canucklehead2]

What he said... It helps fit in with the existing urban scape but it also sacrifices many things to do so like speed and value for $ (which I've been harping on here since the late 1990's much to the chagrin of many).

[Myrtonos]

This animation shows that the Valley line is mostly off street.

• Video Link

[craner]

Surface running downtown ?! - Don't do it !!
(My warning from Calgary)
My personal preference is high floor for all the reasons already pointed out.

Calgary is going low floor as well on the new green line here and I don't like it. At least they are going underground downtown with it.

Thanks for posting the simulation video Myrtonos.

[Coldrsx]

^apples and oranges though.

[McBoo]

I'm okay with low floor. Speed shouldn't be an issue for much of the line as I think the specs from Bombardier indicate a top speed of 80 kph.

Just that damn Whyte Ave level crossing!! Grrrr.

[Myrtonos]

Originally Posted by craner

Surface running downtown ?! - Don't do it !!
(My warning from Calgary)
My personal preference is high floor for all the reasons already pointed out.

Calgary is going low floor as well on the new green line here and I don't like it. At least they are going underground downtown with it.

Recall this thread. That inspired me.

Originally Posted by McBoo

I'm okay with low floor. Speed shouldn't be an issue for much of the line as I think the specs from Bombardier indicate a top speed of 80 kph.

But the animation mostly shows locations where high platforms do work. So even if one is "okay" with low floor, the advantages of a floor lower than the wheel tops still seem to be negated.

[speedog]

Low floor will be good for the SE portion of Calgary's upcoming Green line because it runs on it's own ROW for a good part of it's length.

The north section of the Green line on Centre Street is where the real problem is - it will run up the middle of Centre Street for about 7 kilometres where there is currently around 42 level intersections plus they'll be reducing Centre Street to two lanes of traffic from it's current four. Now if anyone has experianced the 36 Street NE section between Memorial Drive and McKnight Boulecard, one will just shudder at what the Centre Street street level section will be like. And the 36 Street NE section is only 12 grade level intersections over about 3 kilometres.

[Myrtonos]

Originally Posted by speedog

Low floor will, be good for the SE portion of Calgary's upcoming Green line because it runs on its own ROW for a good part of it's length.

That doesn't sound like something that will make low floor good for that portion.

I don't get the rest of the post above.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Myrtonos

That doesn't sound like something that will make low floor good for that portion.

I don't get the rest of the post above.

Low floor will work but that corridor would work well for tall floor as well.

As far as the Centre Street section, it's the disruption to traffic in reduced traffic lanes and the two neighbouring N-S corridors into downtown can not accommodate any increased traffic loads. Also, if the north section is meant to be a people mover for the suburbs (north of Beddington Trail) then 7 kilometres of street level intersections sort of negates that. Now I suppose a good number of those 42 street level intersections will be closed to traffic going across the tracks but that'll really kill the walkability of the several older communities that the LRT line will run through.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^apples and oranges though.

I gotta call BS on that. Calgary's learned their painful lesson of surface mass-transit in their core and is finally going underground.

Edmonton on the other hand had it right the first time, and now it wants to give up that significant advantage and screw things up just so a few urbanists with trolley fetishes can get their rocks off.

I can tell you which city's going in the right direction vis-a-vis the core, and its name starts with a C.

[Myrtonos]

Originally Posted by speedog

Low floor will work but that corridor would work well for tall floor as well.

If it works no less well with high platforms, then high floor would be the way to go.

[Myrtonos]

Originally Posted by s211

I gotta call BS on that. Calgary's learned their painful lesson of surface mass-transit in their core and is finally going underground.

Edmonton on the other hand had it right the first time, and now it wants to give up that significant advantage and screw things up just so a few urbanists with trolley fetishes can get their rocks off.

I can tell you which city's going in the right direction vis-a-vis the core, and its name starts with a C.

It seems that the Valley line is mostly off street and the short on-street section is the only one where high platforms might not work.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Myrtonos

It seems that the Valley line is mostly off street and the short on-street section is the only one where high platforms might not work.

The actual difference between a low platform and a high one is massively exaggerated, it's like a 1 foot difference and is not worth compromising an entire system just to make a slightly smaller ramp at a few stations.

[Myrtonos]

Did you read the rest of what I said about the low floor recommendation? Maybe it's not worth compromising the design of the vehicles themselves just to make ramps slightly shorter. Another way to make ramps slightly shorter at the odd stop is to dip the tracks.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Myrtonos

Did you read the rest of what I said about the low floor recommendation? Maybe it's not worth compromising the design of the vehicles themselves just to make ramps slightly shorter. Another way to make ramps slightly shorter at the odd stop is to dip the tracks.

You don't even need to do that. You can make a high floor station that fits in to the street almost as well as a low floor one, Sunnyside Station in Calgary is a pretty good example. But often the proponents of these low floor systems make false comparisons of large heavier LRT stations to streetcar tram stations. The height of the floor doesn't really matter, you can put as much or little infrastructure in as you like. But... the idea that a minimalist platform in the middle of the street is better than a proper station on a railway with its own ROW is also misleading.

[Myrtonos]

In many cities there are locations where high platforms won't work. That's why low floor transit vehicles were developed. That photo shows a stop alongside a street.