Quote:
Originally Posted by timun
And just because we could go low-floor doesn't mean that we should. Many of those newer low-floor LRT systems in North America are glorified streetcar systems, whereas the Green Line will be tasked with functioning as commuter rail from far-flung 'burbs to a subway downtown, all in one line.
Low-floor was an attractive idea when huge portions of the Green Line were planned to be BRT first before being converted to LRT 20-30 years from now; ideally the bus station platforms could be exactly the same height as the low-floor LRT. Instead of MacGyvering the BRT system into an LRT we can do whatever's best from the outset, and that's not necessarily low-floor.
|
It is true that many LRT systems are closer to streetcars, but there is also a wide spectrum of other types, including ones that operate closer to commuter rail or mini versions of high capacity heavy rail subway and fully elevated systems. Actually, "LRT" has become a bit of a catch-all term that has been used to describe everything from lines that are just a cut above streetcars in terms of capacity, reach, speed to things like Vancouver's fully grade separated and automated Skytrain.
Regardless, there are low floor options that can function exactly like the current high floor trains do. Same or greater capacity, same top speed and acceleration, etc. Ultimately, the design and philosophy of the line may be closer to an "urban LRT" type system in the more inner city areas (as per visioning sessions a couple years ago), but that won't be because of any constraint the low floor aspect causes.