Why are platforms so high in Los Angeles?

[Alexis Kasperavičius]

Having traveled around the one thing I notice consistently is that most streetcars are low to the ground. But here in LA we have to build expensive platforms costing hundreds of thousands of dollars each to get people on the train. It seems a huge waste not only in the cost to build, but the effort to get up from the disabled and the inevitable lawsuit one day from someone falling off.


But here's a system in Portland. Low to the ground, easy to get on.


Here's another system in Dresden, Germany. Same. Low to the ground.


And us - a new Expo line platform(!):

In fact, the low to the ground version seems more standard world wide - allowing the train to stop almost anywhere and greatly reducing the cost of building, et cetera.

Does anyone know why or how this decision came to pass? What happened in Los Angeles?

(You can see more pics of the Dresden system here: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=otherrail&action=display&thread=881)

[Gokhan]

All light-rail stations in Los Angeles are ADA-compliant, I believe. While you can sue anybody for anything, you can't simply sue a transit company for falling down a platform, as most transit lines use high platforms. I don't know for example if there are any subway lines (rapid transit) that use low platforms.

You are absolutely right that it's very well-known that there are two different platform configurations for light-rail lines around the world: low and high. The platforms in Los Angeles are 3¼-ft-high (99 cm) from top of rail. That's what was chosen for the Blue Line and is the standard for all light-rail lines for interoperability.

The question what should be preferable for platform height is a complicated one. I believe Los Angeles chose high platforms because they are more suitable for long distance, high-speed, and ballasted track, which is what these lines are primarily in LA, with one exception of the Eastside Line. Others might argue that you can still operate trains at 55 - 65 MPH even if they are low-platform and even if it's ballasted track.

One disadvantage of low platform is that you need to climb steps inside the train. Also they might have worse crash rating. Another disadvantage is that you don't get much view of the outside above the 8-ft-high sound walls.

So, I personally like high-platform light-rail more than low-platform light-rail. The latter is more like a streetcar and the former is more like rapid transit or commuter rail, I think.

[darrell]

Alex, it goes back to the early U.S light rail lines in the 1990s. Systems like San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, and Portland used high-floor cars with low platforms, where passengers climbed steps inside the cars.

Special provisions were made for wheelchairs. San Diego mounted wheelchair lifts on the front car door. Sacramento built short elevated blocks with ramps to access the front door. Los Angeles, perhaps anticipating higher ridership for the Blue Line, instead adopted high-platform stations.

Later U.S. lines like Houston (first photo) adopted 70% low-floor cars. Earlier lines like Portland (second photo) and San Jose raised their platforms to match the new cars. But the standard for L.A. will remain high platforms.

I believe U.S. low-floor cars have higher floors than low-floor European trams, to accommodate larger wheels for higher speeds.

[Gokhan]

Apr 5, 2010 10:12:56 GMT -8 darrell said:

I believe U.S. low-floor cars have higher floors than low-floor European trams, to accommodate larger wheels for higher speeds.

Ah, that explains the speed issue.

Also, here in US, we love bigger and meaner. For example the 18-wheelers here look like they eat the T.I.R.s in Europe for breakfast. Have you ever seen the burgers and soda cups at a Burger King in Europe? Even the kid's meals are bigger here.

[darrell]

Also, Alex, 800-pixel-wide images have been a standard for posting here, for formatting width and download speed.

But I should ask everyone, should that still be true? I'd love to post wider photos if that were compatible with others' computers. Alex's 1024 width fits fine on my 1400 x 1050 laptop screen and downloads ok via cable modem. And I doubt anyone here is even comfortably viewing 800 pixel photos via dial-up (but how about dial-up?).

[bluelineshawn]

The 1024 width works for me as well. People have complained about larger sizes in the past but unless we go to thumbnails, I don't see any significant advantage for dial-up users.

[bobdavis]

There's always at least one example---for a subway with low-platform loading, just go to Boston. The Green Line (which subdivides into B, C, D and E) goes through the oldest subway in the US but also does street running, median tracks, and light-rail operation on an abandoned "steam railroad" branch. The Cleveland rail system has a few miles where high and low platform trains share tracks and overhead wire. San Francisco Muni had the platforms in Twin Peaks Tunnel at Forest Hill raised for the new LRV's in the 1970's, but left a low section at one end of each to allow PCC's to use the station before the complete "cutover" in 1982. One aspect of the high-platform standard on LA light rail lines was discussed elsewhere on this board: the idea of using "heritage" or "vintage" cars on the lines. Someone posted a photo of Pacific Electric 418 at Orange Empire; with the same dimensions as a main line railroad car, if it were transported to the Gold Line yard, and did run OK, it would get to Chinatown or Lincoln Heights, there would be an awful CRASH and that would be that.

[Gokhan]

OK, time to upgrade from SVGA to XGA then!

Display resolutions

Although, I should caution that the most common laptop resolution nowadays is 1366 x 768 (15.6", 16:9, 100 dpi). Therefore, the common laptop will require some amount of vertical scrolling to view the full XGA (1024 x 768) image due to the headers, toolbars, etc. on the browser.

[rajacobs]

Bottom line: we got what we've got. Bob mentioned Cleveland having a short run of shared track and power for higher and lower entry cars (not shared platforms). This was a makeshift solution due to lack of city-wide planning in the 20s and 30s.

Higher platforms at this point are a sunk cost. Dual entry cars could offer future flexibility, but probably at prohibitive cost and reduced capacity, and function as a "solution" to an ill-defined problem.

[darrell]

Apr 5, 2010 12:03:46 GMT -8 Gokhan said:

Although, I should caution that the most common laptop resolution nowadays is 1366 x 768 (15.6", 16:9, 100 dpi). Therefore, the common laptop will require some amount of vertical scrolling to view the full XGA (1024 x 768) image due to the headers, toolbars, etc. on the browser.

That's a reason to adopt my 16:10 aspect ratio, so photos would be 1024 x 640. I use it because it seems to fit most shots better than 4:3 (16:12), but isn't as short as HD's 16:9.

[crzwdjk]

Basically, the high platforms are an artifact of history. There are three basic types of light rail trains: high-floor with steps for a low platform, high-floor with no steps for a high platform, and low floor for level boarding from a low platform. The Blue Line was designed after the passage of ADA made level boarding necessary, thus ruling out the first type (which had been used in San Jose and San Diego), but before low-floor trains had become widespread. The high platform was thus the only option at the time. Note that this isn't really unique, and there are a few other light rail/Stadtbahn systems worldwide with a similar design, including Stuttgart and Manchester.

[rajacobs]

So, I gain the impression that LA can't even have high platform trains with an alt. low-entry for areas like downtown Santa Monica or downtown Long Beach where a LRV could function more like a streetcar for a few blocks.

[bobdavis]

It's not that LA "can't have" high/low cars (Muni LRV's in San Francisco being a prime example), it's just that LA Metro already has over 160 "high platform only" LRV's, and changing at this point (20 years down the road) would probably be a lot more trouble and expense than it's worth.

[rajacobs]

But if ADA requires "level-boarding," then lower boarding would require the ability to elevate wheelchair devices to the floor level. Sounds like a lot of extra cost! Of course, given 160 high platform cars already, the question is moot.

[Gokhan]

Climbing steps to board the Los Angeles Metro light-rail trains is totally out of question, as this would tremendously increase the station-dwell times and turn them into buses. Just think how long it takes for a single elderly and/or disabled person to climb the steps to board a bus, and a significant fraction of transit riders fall into this category.

[bluelineshawn]

Cars with high and low boarding are good for streetcars where stops are frequent and only a few people board at each stop but would greatly increase dwell times for LA. LA made a choice for high platforms as low floor cars weren't common back then and ADA was soon to be required.

The bigger question is why are some new systems (Sacramento, Dallas, etc) buying high floor cars and using low platforms?!? That makes no sense. They have to have the ramps to meet ADA requirements and dwell times are much longer in general.

[darrell]

Apr 5, 2010 11:27:16 GMT -8 darrell said:

Also, Alex, 800-pixel-wide images have been a standard for posting here, for formatting width and download speed.

But I should ask everyone, should that still be true? I'd love to post wider photos if that were compatible with others' computers. Alex's 1024 width fits fine on my 1400 x 1050 laptop screen and downloads ok via cable modem. And I doubt anyone here is even comfortably viewing 800 pixel photos via dial-up (but how about dial-up?).

Turns out, per Bart this afternoon, that larger images could also trigger bandwidth charges for maintaining this discussion board. So please stick to 800-pixel-wide images (Alex's two above were resized to fit).

[darrell]

Apr 5, 2010 17:37:10 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

The bigger question is why are some new systems (Sacramento, Dallas, etc) buying high floor cars and using low platforms?!? That makes no sense. They have to have the ramps to meet ADA requirements and dwell times are much longer in general.

Dallas is converting its two-section articulated cars to three-section cars with a low-floor center section.





(DART photos)

That still required raising low platform heights to match the low floor, at least where ADA boarding occurs. San Jose rebuilt all of their stations to match their new low-floor cars. Sacramento seems to be sticking with their existing stations and car design.

[jeisenbe]

One other issue: low floor vehicles have limited space for wheels, motors and suspension. You don't seen any low-floor long-distance or high-speed trains for these reasons. If you want to go really fast, and you want a smooth ride, low floors introduce difficulties.

I think the choice of high platforms was right for the Blue Line and Green Line, both of which function like "pre-metro" or "light metro" for much (blue) / all (green) of the route, with grade separation or a separate right-of-way and widely spaced stations. Expo and the Gold Line extensions also have rather wide station spacing for light rail, compared to other systems around the world. Really, we are doing a sort of hybride of regional rail, metro rail ("subway" / "el") and european light rail in our system.

Considering how big Los Angeles County is, we need 65 mph max speeds, long trains, fully level boarding and big platforms. It would have been hard to make that happen with low platforms, at least back in the 1980's.

I also am happy that the requirement of high platforms in our system prevents Metro from spacing stations too closely. Look at San Francisco or Sacramento, with light rail stations every 1/4 mile in many places: you get speeds closer to a bus or streetcar.

In the future, if natural gas and diesel become so expensive that trolleybuses and streetcars look more cost-effective than buses, or if we have a huge move toward transit, we should consider replacing the Rapid bus routes with low-floor light rail. These lines could operate like the Orange Line or the future Wilshire Blvd "BRT" that is planned, with low-platform stations in the right lane every 1/2 mile (or every 1/4 mile in downtown areas), but with 2 or 3 car light rail vehicles instead of buses. All of the current rapid routes have enough ridership today that an upgrade to light rail will be needed if the city and transit ridership continue to grow over the next 20 to 30 years. With an exclusive right of way and signal preemption, these lines would be faster than the street-running sections of the current Blue and Gold lines, and could be built as cheaply as modern streetcars (25 to 50 million per mile, according to: www.infrastructurist.com/2009/05/13/transit-cost-chart/). We could have 400 miles of street-level light rail (comparable to the first 24 metro rapid lines) for 20 billion, which would only buy 40 to 80 miles of subway. Of course, I would like that too!

[jeisenbe]

Actually, there are 450 miles of Metro Rapid routes now, according to www.metro.net/projects/rapid/, so it would cost 18 to 22 billion to convert to street-running light rail, at a cost of 40 to 50 million per mile (comparable to Portland's streetcar expansion costs). For comparison, Measure R was supposed to raise 40 billion over 30 years via the 0.5 cent sales tax.

I should clarify that I think new rail routes on off-street or grade-separated corridors are more useful than upgrading metro buses to rail, for the time being. You can't run a light rail train at 65 mph next to a sidewalk, but you can do it on a fenced right-of-way, so it makes since to spend twice as much per mile on light rail lines like Expo. But there will come a day when we will want to exchange those buses for rail, when fuel prices get out of control.