Why I disagree with the SE LRT's Low-Level LRV's recommendation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I think maybe Cagary Transit guy is more worried that we would be using 2 separate systems. what are the drawbacks to 2 separate systems? I can think of a few but I am not involved in transit at all so I will reserve my comments.

Well, once you get to a certain system fleet size for LRV maintenance, there is less economies of scale which comes in the maintenance department.

Would likely need a maintenance facility with the same variety of facilities, spare parts, and such for a high floor fleet vc a low floor fleet.

Easy solution =
P3 with 30 years of operations and maintenance with a techonologically neutral tender. Station locations, capacity requirements, and the ROW the city has secured. Should be done concurrently with NC LRT (even if it is built during a 2nd or 3rd phase).

I think it is very hard for the city to predict the outcome of the huge optimization problem without private bidders.

Heck, might even end up with automated trains out of it all!

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Maybe I'm not asking correctly, but my point was that I fail to see how low floor stations would be significantly cheaper given all of that.

Whether we're talking station rebuild or brand new stations (as is the case with the SELRT), those kind of costs are going to be the same. The "concrete box" is basically the only thing differentiating the station types - is it truly that expensive that low floor really saves that much money?

It's not just the concrete box it's also the interaction with the buildings, whether that makes a huge difference or not I'm not sure

I would imagine that much of the cost associated with the 7th ave stations has to do with removing the old stations and upgrading the utilities, rather than the actual construction of the new stations

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

It's not just the concrete box it's also the interaction with the buildings, whether that makes a huge difference or not I'm not sure

Which shouldn't really be an issue on the SELRT except for a few downtown stations...

[MalcolmTucker]

An issue with the downtown stations (and potentially future NC LRT subway/elevated) in particular from a cost perspective is station box size. Low floor LRT will get you the longest station box for a particular capacity.

[craner]

I'm not sure how to answer the poll so I'll just state my opinion.

I don't understand why the City would introduce low floor trains that are different and non-compatible with the existing system?

I've read a few weak arguments in favor of the low floor but I say let's stick to the existing high floor system for all the LRT lines.

My $0.02.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by craner

I don't understand why the City would introduce low floor trains that are differen't

Random OT spelling/grammar nazi comment, but...

If this was short for "differ not", then it would in fact be the opposite of the intended meaning.

[Policy Wonk]

Low-floor LRV's are basically just a compromise for people who really, really wanted a streetcar.

In the post-ADA world there are really no intrinsic advantages to them.

[Yahoo]

I guess it's off topic or perhaps is another thread (sorry), but instead of going lower (which seems like the only advantage is lower platforms - which I can't see saving that much in construction costs - I mean it's only dropping a foundation wall a few feet), what about going higher - as in an elevated system? Not super high, and even dipping to ground level where there is room.

Decades ago a group offered the city a free, yes free, monorail system from the airport to downtown. It was a prototype and all the city had to do was provide the land. But the city rejected it outright (perhaps they saw The Simpson's monorail episode and it scared them - but I think the proposal predates it).

I remember watching something on The Discovery Channel about an overhead type system in India that was relatively cheap. It took very little room because the system was hung off of piers, so it could hug or hang over existing roads without a whole lot of modification to the roadway. I think in that case they hung the passenger cars off of a rail track, but I wonder if hanging cars off of a single rail per side would work.

I guess the "ugliness" factor is always a big deal for some people when talking about raised trains, but it does seem to be an easy cheap way to do things. There are big advantages too since it avoids most utilities and it doesn't require overpasses or interchanges with roadways which has to be very expensive.

[westendjack]

Originally Posted by mersar

And that time is in the next few months. CT is reportedly talking with companies other then Siemens about the next order of LRV's that was funded by GreenTRIP, partly due to the fact that Siemens and the City are involved in a lawsuit over these last LRV's at this point.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Bombardier comes up with should they get the contract. The Flexity Outlooks that were here for the Olympic Line demonstration project were really sharp machines.

I hope Calgary Transit makes arrangements to hold onto some U2s for historic purposes.

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

But part of the design of the Canada Line was to deal with people going to and coming from YVR. Bombardier couldn't really get their cars to work providing areas for baggage (from what I heard) and so they went with the Hyundai vehicles - which have areas to put baggage under the seats for benches and more room to accommodate standing passengers with luggage.

I'm pretty that was as an after the fact rationale as to why the Rotem vehicles were superior for this application then Bombardier's ART trains. Although, as I understand it, had Bombardier won the bid for the Canada Line, the stations would have been somewhat longer from the outset with longer train sets.

Its worth noting that Beijing's Airport Line and JFK's AirTrain are both Bombardier ART systems using Mark 2 train sets, so I'm fairly confident that they could have also handled YVR's traffic.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by westendjack

I'm pretty that was as an after the fact rationale as to why the Rotem vehicles were superior for this application then Bombardier's ART trains. Although, as I understand it, had Bombardier won the bid for the Canada Line, the stations would have been somewhat longer from the outset with longer train sets.

Its worth noting that Beijing's Airport Line and JFK's AirTrain are both Bombardier ART systems using Mark 2 train sets, so I'm fairly confident that they could have also handled YVR's traffic.

Yeah, longer stations but small diameter tunnels. The tender solely had requirements for eventual capabilities up to 15,000 ppdph.

When all the variables were calculated by the bidders, the proposal as is built won. ART/ Skytrain lovers/ protectionists like to believe ART failed because the contracts couldn't account for economies of scale in maintenance with the existing Skytrain, but ART has its own eccentricities which drives up cost. (needing more maintenance shutdown time for rail grinding but one example).

Technology neutral tendering is something politicians don't really like, it removes control from them, but it should lead to the best balance of performance vs construction cost vs maintenance cost as opposed to a consultant report on technology options.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Yahoo

I guess it's off topic or perhaps is another thread (sorry), but instead of going lower (which seems like the only advantage is lower platforms - which I can't see saving that much in construction costs - I mean it's only dropping a foundation wall a few feet), what about going higher - as in an elevated system? Not super high, and even dipping to ground level where there is room.

Decades ago a group offered the city a free, yes free, monorail system from the airport to downtown. It was a prototype and all the city had to do was provide the land. But the city rejected it outright (perhaps they saw The Simpson's monorail episode and it scared them - but I think the proposal predates it).

I remember watching something on The Discovery Channel about an overhead type system in India that was relatively cheap. It took very little room because the system was hung off of piers, so it could hug or hang over existing roads without a whole lot of modification to the roadway. I think in that case they hung the passenger cars off of a rail track, but I wonder if hanging cars off of a single rail per side would work.

I guess the "ugliness" factor is always a big deal for some people when talking about raised trains, but it does seem to be an easy cheap way to do things. There are big advantages too since it avoids most utilities and it doesn't require overpasses or interchanges with roadways which has to be very expensive.

Monorails are the absolute worst form of transit. Other than Disneyland, they should never be used. Here is why:

1. Difficult to branch. Monorails "hug" the rails, so it is very difficult to have them branch from one line to another (i.e. the switches are not easy to implement). This causes huge issues with moving cars off for maintenance, turning around at the terminus of the line, etc. Typically, monorails run in a loop (meaning expansion of the system is impossible), and so you limit the number of trains running at any one time.
2. Impossible to run at grade. Again, hugging the rails means that there are two large depressions created if the monorail ever runs at grade, which is a hazard.

I think what you really mean is elevated rail, which is very different from monorails.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Low-floor LRV's are basically just a compromise for people who really, really wanted a streetcar.

In the post-ADA world there are really no intrinsic advantages to them.

I agree. The only disadvantage I see to highfloor is at-grade stations, which cause issues with existing building entrances. If you are not running at grade for most of the route, I don't see the point of Low-Floor, unless there are cost savings in other places. That being said, if the costs of the trains are rights of way are comparable, there really isn't a reason to go with low-floor.

[Dado]

If you're going to go through the palaver of building a busway first and then converting it to light rail later on (I recently wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald on the topic), then this is one area where low-floor designs have some advantage over high-floor because you can take steps to ensure that a station's platforms are suitable for both low-floor LRVs and buses, but for high-floor LRVs and buses that would be pretty challenging.

[nname]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah, longer stations but small diameter tunnels. The tender solely had requirements for eventual capabilities up to 15,000 ppdph.

When all the variables were calculated by the bidders, the proposal as is built won. ART/ Skytrain lovers/ protectionists like to believe ART failed because the contracts couldn't account for economies of scale in maintenance with the existing Skytrain, but ART has its own eccentricities which drives up cost. (needing more maintenance shutdown time for rail grinding but one example).

I think Bombardier lost because their bid:
- Have tunnel in the center of street instead of under nothbound lane - less distruption but higher cost for tree/utility relocation.
- The station are 80m long instead of 40/50m... thus providing more ultimate capacity than 15,000 pphpd.
- There are no single track section in Richmond and Airport end.
- Have a trench for about 1.5km instead of completely underground, which is less desirable.
- The bid is about 300M higher I think.

[Wigs]

you can get high floor trains with no platform
example: Buffalo's Metro Rail (with the original colours, soon all will be rehabbed with new blue/silver scheme)

you still need a small ramp for the disabled though (at the front can't be seen in video)
gotta love early 1980's Japanese technology!
and yes the Metro Rail goes under Buffalo's only true skyscraper, the 1.2M SF One HSBC Center
• Video Link

Calgary Transit should completely rehab the old U2's ala Buffalo to get an extra 10-15 years out of them for much cheaper than buying new cars. just my $0.02

[MalcolmTucker]

They aren't even refurbing them for the main lines, as the number of $s/year of service is higher for refurb.

[Wigs]

really? in Buffalo's case it was $3.5M for each new car or ~$1.1-$1.5M to completely rehab each existing Tokyu car and the NFTA figures once the rehab is complete they won't need to readdress the situation until 2030

[MalcolmTucker]

From Open File http://calgary.openfile.ca/file/2011...algary-problem:

Meanwhile, the majority of cars in Calgary's system, U2 models — which also feature transverse seating — are starting to show their age. Since the C-Train's inception in 1981, the cars have traveled over a million miles each. While San Diego, who operates an almost-identical model of transit car, has sold some of their old cars to Mendoza, Argentina, Edmonton chose to refurbish theirs.

Despite the relative age of the three cities’ cars, Calgary’s U2s work under the toughest conditions. Calgary’s harsh winters put the cars under more duress than those in Edmonton, where the LRT does not run fully above the streets, and San Diego’s, where weather conditions are milder.

Edmonton is refurbishing its 37 cars at a cost of $1.4 million each, to make the cars last for another 10 years. But here in Calgary, William Hamilton, of the advocacy group TransitCamp, says the cost of refurbishing Calgary's cars wouldn't be worth it.

“Once [the city] realized that firstly, to bring [the U2 cars] up to a reasonable standard as the SD160s, the cost of the cars would be to the order of $2.2 million, and when they realized at the same time at that expense would extend the cars lifespan 10 years, as opposed to 30 years running time you can get out of a new vehicle, the numbers simply didn’t add up,” says Hamilton, adding that Calgary deserves reliable cars for its growing system.

Even if Calgary had chosen to refurbish the cars, Calgary’s passenger loads mean only very few cars could be sent away for repairs. Edmonton, who chose Bombardier to refurbish their vehicles, sends them to a shop in New York state since there are no facilities in Alberta, or even Canada, which could complete the work. According to Edmonton Transit’s LRT director Dave Geake, it’s a slow process.
“
We had to limit the number of cars…to three at any time at Bombardier’s plant. We have about 10 vehicles back [so far],” Geake says, noting some of the cars have come back with issues that they are still addressing.

With this in mind, council rejected a plan to refurbish Calgary’s cars in May, instead purchasing more of the newer car SD-160s. It was a defeat for Alderman Shane Keating, who had championed refurbishment in hopes that a large portion of funding from the provincial government would be allocated to a southeast transit way if refurbishment had been accepted as an option.

[hulkrogan]

SF MUNI Metro:

Raised platorm, stairs in the car raise to match the platform and car interior heights:


Street level station, stairs drop down from car interior height to allow access:


Tada!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

SF MUNI Metro:

Raised platorm, stairs in the car raise to match the platform and car interior heights:
Tada!

I rode the MUNI when in San Fran. The one downside is the huge wheelchair ramps on the side walk to get a level boarding on the front door. It is a cool concept though.