|
|
Post by John Ryan on May 2, 2011 23:34:55 GMT -8
In Europe, most new LRTs and streetcars are being built with low-floor technology. This significantly reduces the cost of stations and increases the flexibility of the service. Low-floor LRT vehicles can traverse the existing LRT system, but they cannot release passengers on high-floor platforms. Would the value of interchangeability with existing high-floor LRT vehicles outweigh the desirability of low-floor trains?
One thing to keep in mind is that with 3-car platforms, 6-car trainsets from the I-405 line wouldn't be able to operate on the rest of the existing Metro LRT system without delinking to 3-car trainsets first.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 3, 2011 7:39:30 GMT -8
It would make no sense to get low floor trains, interoperable rolling stock can be invaluable.
Low floor vehicles also have reduced seating capacity. This trade-off makes sense in buses since it makes boarding easier by not having to make people step up, but little sense when the platform is already at the height of a high floor vehicle. Essentially, it gives the high floor train the same experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 3, 2011 10:33:01 GMT -8
Is there an advantage to low floor LRT other than it looks nicer (subjective)?
I can't fathom an operational reason now that we already have somewhat extensive high floor LRT system. How much cheaper is the station for low floor trains? Can't be that much.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 3, 2011 15:08:50 GMT -8
If we were starting from scratch, sure you could go with low-floor. But with 70+ miles of existing high-floor network, I think that "train has sailed."
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 3, 2011 17:57:15 GMT -8
If we were starting from scratch, sure you could go with low-floor. But with 70+ miles of existing high-floor network, I think that "train has sailed." Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 3, 2011 20:01:29 GMT -8
If we were starting from scratch, sure you could go with low-floor. But with 70+ miles of existing high-floor network, I think that "train has sailed." I wouldnt start from scratch with low floor. Youre trading in a few bucks on day 1 (cheaper platforms ) with a lifetime of operational headaches (low floor = stairs = lower capacity + bunching of passengers + problems for the elderly and disabled) Also note that for some reason (I dont understand why), no low floor rail system offers true level boarding. Wheelchairs need to push a button for a ramp. A good example is BRT systems. Compare the cheap US BRT systems (cutting every corner they can) with the latin american ones. In Latin America they ALWAYS go with high floor (with high platforms) because of the better capacity and passenger flow. Theres no a single high floor bus system with level boarding in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 3, 2011 21:14:37 GMT -8
If we were starting from scratch, sure you could go with low-floor. But with 70+ miles of existing high-floor network, I think that "train has sailed." I wouldnt start from scratch with low floor. Youre trading in a few bucks on day 1 (cheaper platforms ) with a lifetime of operational headaches (low floor = stairs = lower capacity + bunching of passengers + problems for the elderly and disabled) Also note that for some reason (I dont understand why), no low floor rail system offers true level boarding. Wheelchairs need to push a button for a ramp. A good example is BRT systems. Compare the cheap US BRT systems (cutting every corner they can) with the latin american ones. In Latin America they ALWAYS go with high floor (with high platforms) because of the better capacity and passenger flow. Theres no a single high floor bus system with level boarding in this country. For what it's worth, there are a number of tram systems in Europe that use low floor, level-boarding, no-stair systems. They aren't really designed for high speeds, but they exist. Here's Strasbourg.  |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on May 3, 2011 21:37:46 GMT -8
High floor level boarding to be consistent with the rest of the system; unless Metro pursues the streetcar option. Our system, unlike LRT systems in San Diego, Dallas, and Houston, is very HRT like, and is easier for anything that needs to roll on board (wheelchairs, strollers, carts, and bicycles).
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 3, 2011 22:24:28 GMT -8
I was surprised to find that the light rail vehicles in Portland have the floor just a few inches higher than the platform. The doors open outside of the vehicle (rather than sliding into the wall), so perhaps this is needed for clearance? This means that bikes and strollers have to be lifted up a little, and wheelchairs have to push a button and wait for a ramp.
Portland wanted low floors so it could have streetcar-style operation in Downtown with "platforms" at sidewalk height, but I wish they could have real level boarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 3, 2011 23:25:07 GMT -8
I was surprised to find that the light rail vehicles in Portland have the floor just a few inches higher than the platform. The doors open outside of the vehicle (rather than sliding into the wall), so perhaps this is needed for clearance? This means that bikes and strollers have to be lifted up a little, and wheelchairs have to push a button and wait for a ramp. Portland wanted low floors so it could have streetcar-style operation in Downtown with "platforms" at sidewalk height, but I wish they could have real level boarding. As I said above, no low floor system in the US has true level boarding. I dont understand why not. [ For what it's worth, there are a number of tram systems in Europe that use low floor, level-boarding, no-stair systems. They aren't really designed for high speeds, but they exist. Here's Strasbourg. Yup, Ive been on them. They also have true low floor buses in europe. And theyre not allergic to doors. But this is america, and we cant have that. 2 doors and stairs for all. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 4, 2011 13:03:20 GMT -8
I posted this thought on the hypothetical Venice Blvd. line thread, but it's relevant here. Couldn't low floor systems be used as starter lines for light rail? Tracks and catenary capable of carrying both low floor and standard height trains could be built, potentially even in a shared lanes scenario. Lanes could later be made transit only, and platforms could be built, switching the rolling stock from low floor to standard Metro. The low floor cars could then be cycled to another part of the network or sold to another system. As we see with the Orange line, it's basically impossible to switch from BRT to streetcar or light rail, but with tracks already laid, it's comparatively fast to build some platforms along the side. That would at least save the costs of building the platforms straight away, and would enable mixed flow scenarios if there is too much initial public resistance to taking away lanes of traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 4, 2011 13:08:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 4, 2011 13:56:44 GMT -8
Couldn't low floor systems be used as starter lines for light rail? Tracks and catenary capable of carrying both low floor and standard height trains could be built, potentially even in a shared lanes scenario. Lanes could later be made transit only, and platforms could be built, switching the rolling stock from low floor to standard Metro. Matthew, Now sure about that idea on the corridor in question, but I recently spent some time reading about the Portland Streetcar project. If you Google it you can find their web page pretty easily. One of the things about the streetcar tracks is that laying them is much easier than laying LRT track. The streetcar tracks only require digging down about 1 foot below grade, so putting them in is much easier than LRT track installation. I believe that the main driver is the vehicle weight, though I could be wrong about that. The catenary supplying power may be different too though, maybe heavier gauge to support multi-car LRT trains versus lighter and smaller streetcars? Not so sure about that though. Bob Davis would be able to answer that pretty quick I would think. Oops, I see in review that you were thinking of LRT all along, just starting with low floor and then switching over to elevated platform. The description you provided sure looked initially like you were proposing streetcar service. RT |
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 4, 2011 15:30:42 GMT -8
I posted this thought on the hypothetical Venice Blvd. line thread, but it's relevant here. Couldn't low floor systems be used as starter lines for light rail? Tracks and catenary capable of carrying both low floor and standard height trains could be built, potentially even in a shared lanes scenario. Lanes could later be made transit only, and platforms could be built, switching the rolling stock from low floor to standard Metro. The low floor cars could then be cycled to another part of the network or sold to another system. As we see with the Orange line, it's basically impossible to switch from BRT to streetcar or light rail, but with tracks already laid, it's comparatively fast to build some platforms along the side. That would at least save the costs of building the platforms straight away, and would enable mixed flow scenarios if there is too much initial public resistance to taking away lanes of traffic. Not to get too side-tracked, but I am not convinced that rails will be necessary on Venice Blvd any time in the next 30 years. Bus only lanes would be a great start, something that would be very cost-effective and practical to advocate for, maybe using LA's local Measure R dollars and some Small Starts grants from the Feds. Using the Wilshire BRT as a reference -- $30 million for 10 miles -- you could do all of Venice for $40 million-ish. Or you could do light rail for 25 times that much. The latter just doesn't make sense. For that kind of money you could do the bus lanes and pay to have 733s running at 2 minute headways until the cows come home. Plus, when Expo opens to Santa Monica in 5 years, that line's going to be doing the downtown LA to the beach heavy lifting (granted that there are plenty of trips starting and ending along Venice). I'll continue this in the other thread.... |
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 5, 2011 4:04:14 GMT -8
One of the things about the streetcar tracks is that laying them is much easier than laying LRT track. There's a reason for that. Portland essentially has an articulated bus tethered to a track and trolley wire. Oops, I see in review that you were thinking of LRT all along, just starting with low floor and then switching over to elevated platform. That's what San Francisco has, and it's quite awesome to see it. In practice, it doesn't work out so well. The Breda Swiss Army rail car has platforms at each door that can turn into stairs. This allows a single rail car to act as a heavy rail metro (under Market Street), as light rail (high platforms along Third Street), and outside of Market Street, the stairs unfold and the train can act like a bus. In other words, the trains stop every 2-3 blocks on little better than a curb and passengers pay their fares in the farebox. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 5, 2011 18:10:16 GMT -8
I'm actually a huge fan of low-floor streetcars — BUT only under the right circumstances. For example, I recently visited Dublin and rode the Luas tram/ trolley/ streetcar there. Very typical European-style, low-floor trolley, and it obviously worked. However, it worked best in the downtown area, where people could use it to shuttle from Connolly Station to Heuston Station. It ran in the middle of a shopping street, and that had advantages and disadvantages. The stations were very small, and people could hop on and off with no trouble. However, the street running meant it was also very slow. For longer distances, Dublin had the DART (Dublin Area Rapid Transit) which was similar to Japanese-style electric commuter trains. High-platform, faster moving, fewer stops, frequently grade-separated. (Note that in my first link, the Luas crosses under DART tracks.) When Los Angeles got started with its light rail system, the low-floor trolley idea hadn't really taken off yet. The only other real alternative would have been the San Francisco Muni trolley... which I like. However, the Muni Metro is clearly perfect for the small neighborhoods and tight curves of San Francisco. I don't see the advantage in a large, spread-out city like L.A. I think that there is room for European/ Portland-style streetcars in Los Angeles, but I do think that the opportunity is limited. The downtown streetcar ought to have low-floor European trams, but that's a topic for elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 9, 2011 3:49:22 GMT -8
However, the Muni Metro is clearly perfect for the small neighborhoods and tight curves of San Francisco. I don't see the advantage in a large, spread-out city like L.A.  What does spread out have to do with the application of San Francisco's Breda cars? They're designed to solve a technical problem -- turning from a streetcar in West San Francisco to a heavy-rail metro under Market Street -- not a land-use problem. And Muni shows that the Metro can't do what it's designed to do very well, or Muni is just too incompetent to do it. The reliability is terrible on all parts. Muni Metros bunch under Market Street; BART is comparatively smooth with all of its shared trains. The streetcar parts perform like buses on the streets; and it affects their performance throughout the line. For a less congested city, one less reliant on tight headways, the Swiss Army rail car might be a good fit. Muni shows the trains can operate under three different service conditions. These trains might be good for a smaller city on the fence between streetcar (not light rail) and BRT. If the idea catches on, that means more of the trains can be produced, and we'd learn how to make them more reliable. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 9, 2011 13:08:54 GMT -8
I I think that there is room for European/ Portland-style streetcars in Los Angeles, but I do think that the opportunity is limited. The downtown streetcar ought to have low-floor European trams, but that's a topic for elsewhere. Please dont confuse high or low floor trains with the operating system theyre placed in. You can have a high floor streetcar (ie, PCCs) and you can have a low floor, grade separated trains that run at 55mph+ |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 9, 2011 15:20:12 GMT -8
the Muni Metro trains are 12 feet shorter than the Metro Blue Line's trains, if Wikipedia is to be believed. Actually, I can tell just to eyeball them that they are shorter. The PCC streetcars are also shorter than either Metro Rail or the Muni Metro trains. If you'll pardon a little bit of semantics, the Muni Metro trains are streetcars designed to fit into subway tunnels, not light rail vehicles. Where I see the difference between Los Angeles and San Francisco is in the curves, not to mention the width of the streets that the Muni travels in mixed traffic. When I see San Francisco, I see a physical, real density that L.A. lacks (even if the statistical numbers can be crunched to suggest otherwise, the EFFECT, the look and feel isn't there). ( Historically, it's also the difference between a streetcar system which modernized, adding a lot of the old quirks into the new system, and a streetcar system which was torn down, and started new again — ignoring or avoiding the problems of the past. ) Metro Rail consists primarily of long stretches of straightway, and I think the Gold Line with Marmion Way and the curves between Chinatown and Little Tokyo (also, the street running sections of East L.A.) are as close as Metro Rail gets to anything resembling Muni. This new rail line (Valley to Westside) sounds like it will fit in more with the Blue or Green Line than with the Gold Line. Yes, you CAN run low-floor streetcars on a line like this, but I wouldn't see the point, when Los Angeles has been high-floor from the beginning. And I also think that there is something to be said for a station platform. Adds a little extra oomph ("here am I, look at me") to a light rail line, which the San Diego system lacks. Again, I do see the low-floor downtown streetcar as a success, but for an entirely different purpose and goals. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 9, 2011 15:34:47 GMT -8
The problem with the low-floor LRVs is that they are slow: ( Wikipedia) Most low floor trams have fixed bogies [2] which increases track wear and tear while decreasing the speed at which a tram can drive through a curve (usually 4-15km/h in 20m radius curve).[3] The Škoda ForCity, the world's first 100% low floor tram with pivoting bogies, is designed to cope with these issues through the use of pivoting bogies. Prior to the Škoda ForCity, pivoting bogies could only be used under high floors, hence such trams can only be part low-floor, with high-floor sections over the pivoting bogies. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 9, 2011 16:50:45 GMT -8
This new rail line (Valley to Westside) sounds like it will fit in more with the Blue or Green Line than with the Gold Line. To be fair though, the Gold Line (Pasadena Segment) averages about 28 mph over the length, which is about as fast as most other rapid transit rail lines in the country. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 9, 2011 17:51:03 GMT -8
To be fair though, the Gold Line (Pasadena Segment) averages about 28 mph over the length, which is about as fast as most other rapid transit rail lines in the country. I'm not necessarily complaining about the Pasadena Gold Line's speed, which is pretty good considering the change in elevation and the Marmion Way section. That's a couple of message boards off from my point. However, there is a definite speed difference between the Gold Line and the Green Line (Green has the advantage of an all-elevated line, and a mostly straight shot from Norwalk to El Segundo). An Valley-to-Westside line ought to be fairly fast, at least as far as Sepulveda Pass is concerned. Gokhan makes a better argument than I do. Fixed bogies and all of that. = One other thought regarding Muni Metro's Swiss Army Trains: There aren't many other alternatives to Market — Mission, maybe — because of the city's hills. That adds to their scheduling "bunching" problem. (At least BART can send trains from Richmond to Fremont....) Certainly that should be food for thought for the Regional Connector, and any other "all purpose" rail line we might build. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 18, 2013 1:19:43 GMT -8
Theres no a single high floor bus system with level boarding in this country. For what it's worth, there are a number of tram systems in Europe that use low floor, level-boarding, no-stair systems. They aren't really designed for high speeds, but they exist. Here's Strasbourg. [/quote] I've actually ridden on the Strasbourg tram, there's a few underground sections that go pretty fast. Seattle's Link Light Rail is also one with low-floor cars that have high-speed sections. So that's not really a factor. Still, we've invested in a high-floor LRT system, and we're sticking to it. It feels more rapid transit-like anyway. Besides, wheelchair riders love it, it's more empowering for them than low-floor systems that use ramps. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 18, 2013 1:37:22 GMT -8
When Los Angeles got started with its light rail system, the low-floor trolley idea hadn't really taken off yet. However, the Muni Metro is clearly perfect for the small neighborhoods and tight curves of San Francisco. I don't see the advantage in a large, spread-out city like L.A. When Kenneth Hahn wanted a light-rail trolley in Los Angeles, he wanted one just like San Diego. As the line that would eventually become the Blue Line was being planned, the LACTC opted to have the system more like Calgary and Edmonton - which used the same model vehicles as SD, but in a high platform-level boarding format, citing ease of passenger ingress/egress and better accessibility for the elderly and disabled. It was just our luck that Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act at the same time the Blue Line opened -- as transit agencies across the country had to spend millions to retrofit their systems to become ADA-compliant, we barely had to make any changes. As for the Muni Metro being "perfect for SF's small neighborhoods," the ONLY reason why the Muni Metro's vehicles were designed like that was to conform to the existing streetcar infrastructure (remember, cities like SF, Boston and Philly never tore up their old streetcar systems, whereas everyone else did - light rail for them was simply a vehicle upgrade rather than a new system to build). If we had kept the LARy/PE tracks and tunnel, we would be using smaller LRVs and street-level boarding today. |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 18, 2013 9:26:27 GMT -8
Our light-rail system is more like the so-called "light metro" systems in Europe where they use high-floor LRVs on mostly grade-separated or secluded track. Their tram systems (as opposed to light-metro systems) that use low-floor LRVs mostly run in street medians.
Low-floor LRVs are probably not suitable for our 55+ MPH, 10-second-door-open-time, and 600-people "light metro" trains.
|
|
