electricron wrote:Did anyone respond they couldn't? There's a difference between couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't.
The strange part is this; the systems Pittsburgh and San Francisco, both of which have some stops in the street environment that cannot have high level platforms, nevertheless provided high platforms in a few others, along with dual height entrance steps. Yet Cleveland, which has a light rail
entirely on reserve, and even sharing tracks with subway trains, still hasn't.
electricron wrote:You're assuming the powers to be in Cleveland will want to continue to use high floor vehicles forever. Maybe they want to buy low floor vehicles when they replace their existing high floor vehicles? So keeping things as they are keeps their options open in the future. They are grandfathered now on having level boarding with their existing vehicles, what they have is good enough. But that will not be true when they replace the existing vehicles. At that time they will have to make a choice, either buy low floor vehicles or raise the height of their existing platforms. It will be their choice on how to meet the federal laws.
Actually, I'm assuming nothing here. Low floor rolling stock was developed for systems where some stops are in streets that don't allow platforms higher than the wheel tops. Bogie design with independent wheels and outboard drives, roof mounted control equipment, and wheel-boxes in the passenger compartment all make them work. Low floor vehicles seem to function best on essentially street based systems, with stopping (on demand) at frequent stops. I know there are low floor L.R.Vs, particularly in North America, which do run extensively off street, but these have part high floor.
Cleveland seems to be able to avoid the problem that low floor L.R.Vs were designed to solve, running all on reserve, with stops in locations where they could use high platforms. What I'm really saying here is that it will be their loss if they squander this advantage, unless they plan on extending their network into the street environment.
electricron wrote:Dallas' DART took an unique choice. They were like Cleveland, having high floor vehicles with very low platforms. DART was in the middle of expansion, building both the Green and Orange Lines after having already built the Red and Blue Lines. They were looking at doubling the size of their fleet. They stretched all of their vehicles, both recently built and brand new ones, with the new "C" car having low floors while the "A" and "B" cars remained with high floors. They also raised all the existing platforms a few inches (not a few feet) for level boarding with the new "C" car. There's built in humps, or ramps, on the older platforms now because they didn't raise the entire platforms. The wavy platforms meet the law requirements for level boarding. The new platforms were all built level at new low level/floor height.
I have seen photos of the Dallas Light rail showing stops in the street environment, maybe they have stops in locations where platforms that high aren't possible.
electricron wrote:If Cleveland chooses to buy low floor vehicles in the future, they most likely will have to raise all their platforms a few inches just like Dallas. If Cleveland chooses to buy high floor vehicles in the future they will have to raise all their platforms a few feet. It will be their choice to make.
The trade of of raising the platforms a few feet, as opposed to a few inches, and this is ongoing, is sticking indefinitely with rolling stock that has under-floor type bogies, control equipment also under the floor, and no wheel-boxes. The ongoing trade-off of the other is making way for extensions into the street environment.
electricron wrote:But today they don''t have to make that choice. They can keep it the way it is if they choose to do so. So it's more like they wouldn't than couldn't or shouldn't.
Could it be that the sooner they make that choice, the better?
jtbell wrote:As far as the stations themselves are concerned, Cleveland could probably go either way, from a technical point of view. As I recall, there's plenty of space in the broad median strips of Shaker and Van Aken Blvds. Aesthetics and cost would would be in favor of low platforms.
What sort of cost do you mean? One-off and ongoing are two different types. Imagine a heavy rail operator converting to low floor heavy rail rolling stock (does exist, in Europe) instead of building up their railway platforms.
Imagine someone building a new metro system with low floor trains instead of building high platforms, thinking that it will save them a little money since their metro doesn't need to be interoperable with existing rail.
But the cost of building the platforms is insignificant compared to the impact of platform height on every generation of rolling stock purchased for the metro system. And all heavy metro has been able to avoid the problem that low floor rail vehicles were designed to solve. Most non-metro heavy rail has too. Level boarding is standard on metro systems around the world, on suburban rail here in Australasia, and on heavy rail in the British Isles, probably nearly all heavy rail in English speaking countries outside North America.
So building a metro with low level platforms and low floor vehicles would, in fact, be squandering the advantage of high platforms being possible in all locations.
Also see
this thread on another forum about someone's disagreement with a low floor recommendation in Calgary.