Ramped/raised curb lane streetcar stops

In Melbourne we have a rebuilt a few tram stops so as to improve access to both high and low floor trams simply by raising the curb lane so as the be (almost) the same height above the TOR as the entrances. The first such stop was on Danks street in a bayside suburb called Albert Park.

Next was on MacArthur street near Parliment railway station.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HWDZvkmHAU

Both are single trafficable stops, with one lane per direction, both traversing the platform. But there are now another two in Bridge road which are double trafficable, with an additional lane in each direction following the tram tracks, I have not found any photos, so here is an artists impression.

Both types of trafficacle kerb access stops can be achieved in three ways, in all the ones we have so far use option A, there are short stretches of curb lane that are the desired platform height above the rest of the road. Option B, suitable where stops are located on the tops of hills or under (low) bridges, is to lower a stretch of streetcar tracks the desired platform height. Option AB is the raise the curb lane by a portion of the desired platform height and also lower the track by the remaining portion, for example, lowering the tracks by half the platform height and raising the curb lane by the same amount. If the desired platform height above rail level is no more than the height of the sidewalk above the edge of the curb lane, option A is the best default. If the desired platform height is any higher, than option AB is best, bringing the curb lane to sidewalk level and lowering the tracks by the difference between the sidewalk level and the desired platform height.

Is they any potential to adopt these in North America? Such as in Portland, and in particular, operators that prefer unidirectional streetcars with doors on only the right.
http://www.yarratrams.com.au/media/6414 ... s-stop.jpg


Moderator's Note: Added one picture, linked the second. 7/2/2013, appx 1 pm CDT

It's possible that could happen in North America with modern streetcars, but not probable for the following reason:
Modern streetcars stops use platforms for pedestrians, I can't think of a modern example where there aren't any platforms with loading from and discharging passengers directly into traffic lanes. I'll readily admit there are old fashioned trolleys with high floors will load from and discharge passengers directly into traffic lanes - but they aren't modern streetcars with low floors. But there are some old fashioned trolleys with high floors running in the center traffic lanes that load and discharge passengers from platforms instead of the outside street lanes.
In modern designs using modern trolleys, if the tracks are in the outside lanes, the platforms are often just raised sidewalks. If the tracks are in the center lanes, the platforms are placed in a center median - converting a non divided street into a divide street, requiring trolley doors on the opposite side of the trolley. Often there are doors on both sides of the trolley or streetcar.

deleted gdd

electricron wrote:It's possible that could happen in North America with modern streetcars, but not probable for the following reason:
Modern streetcars stops use platforms for pedestrians, I can't think of a modern example where there aren't any platforms with loading from and discharging passengers directly into traffic lanes.

But those modern systems mostly have curbside tracks, not in the middle of the road.

electricron wrote:I'll readily admit there are old fashioned trolleys with high floors will load from and discharge passengers directly into traffic lanes - but they aren't modern streetcars with low floors. But there are some old fashioned trolleys with high floors running in the center traffic lanes that load and discharge passengers from platforms instead of the outside street lanes.
In modern designs using modern trolleys, if the tracks are in the outside lanes, the platforms are often just raised sidewalks. If the tracks are in the center lanes, the platforms are placed in a center median - converting a non divided street into a divide street, requiring trolley doors on the opposite side of the trolley. Often there are doors on both sides of the trolley or streetcar.

But won't the existing systems such as in Philladelphia go for low floor when in the Market for new vehicles? And when they do, will they bother moving the tracks to the roadside? Curb access stops, trafficable or not, are a way of rebulidng existing stops with platforms wthout moving the tracks, apart from maybe a slight dip. Placing platforms in the centre median would make sense on systems with mostly dead end termini as they simply make use of what technically complient rolling stock has. A unidirectional LRV (turned around at each end of the line) with doors on both sides still uses the same doors for all stops on the same side, why not just put all platforms on the same side? Only half as many doors, and more seats, mostly fixed front facing. And I reiterate, even bidirectional rolling stock may still need loops. A loop may be around the block with route incoperated into it, or simply serve as a terminus. At very busy termini, there is often not the time or even incentive to switch ends, especially given that a hidden fault discovered while changing ends in high traffic areas can cause more backups than a streetcar load of tourists. If for example loops at all downtown termini is the only way to go, it is worth considering loops, turntables or wyes at uptown termini and intermediate turnbacks (any triangular junction counts), and again note that even with bidirectional rollling stock, some busy routes may still need loops at both ends. More detail on this topic.

Anyway, as I said curb extension stops, whether bulbouts or trafficable can be provided either without moving the tracks or only lowering them sightly, even an island platform may still need some increase in track centres. This could in some cases enable reactivation of buried tracks rather than laying new ones next to the curb.

Myrtone wrote:But won't the existing systems such as in Philladelphia go for low floor when in the Market for new vehicles? And when they do, will they bother moving the tracks to the roadside? Curb access stops, trafficable or not, are a way of rebulidng existing stops with platforms wthout moving the tracks, apart from maybe a slight dip. Placing platforms in the centre median would make sense on systems with mostly dead end termini as they simply make use of what technically complient rolling stock has. A unidirectional LRV (turned around at each end of the line) with doors on both sides still uses the same doors for all stops on the same side, why not just put all platforms on the same side? Only half as many doors, and more seats, mostly fixed front facing. And I reiterate, even bidirectional rolling stock may still need loops. A loop may be around the block with route incoperated into it, or simply serve as a terminus. At very busy termini, there is often not the time or even incentive to switch ends, especially given that a hidden fault discovered while changing ends in high traffic areas can cause more backups than a streetcar load of tourists. If for example loops at all downtown termini is the only way to go, it is worth considering loops, turntables or wyes at uptown termini and intermediate turnbacks (any triangular junction counts), and again note that even with bidirectional rollling stock, some busy routes may still need loops at both ends. More detail on this topic.

Anyway, as I said curb extension stops, whether bulbouts or trafficable can be provided either without moving the tracks or only lowering them sightly, even an island platform may still need some increase in track centres. This could in some cases enable reactivation of buried tracks rather than laying new ones next to the curb.

If Philadelphia doesn't move the tracks; up, down, left, or right; they'll most likely will close the outside lanes to through traffic and place a platform where the outside lane was at the station location, and place on-street parking in that lane when not at a station location. It's just so much safer to board and alight passengers at station platforms than in the middle of a busy traffic lane.
If they can find the funding to purchase a fleet of modern streetcars, they should be able to find the money to move the tracks to the curbside, either the outer or inner curb, at the station platform locations.

Frist of all, closing the curb lane and placing a bulb out platform would force road vehicles onto the tracks, also placing on street parking elsewhere would mean that reverse parking could delay streetcars. Come on, there are better alternatives to using the king's highway as a stable yard, one is only parking in side street and sophisticated parking garages being provided where they aren't enough. At most tram stops here in Melbourne, boarding and alighting passengers do cross the curb lane, with all motor vehicles stopped behind the tram. We have been able to find plenty of funding to purchase low floor trams, but we have not moved any tracks to the curbside, some sign on the pole stops have been upgraded to platform stops, two of them are island platforms, there are a number of bulb out platforms on a recent extension, but the rest all have trafficable curb extensions. Note that much of this track is well maintained and has a great deal of money invested into it.

Philadelphia's remaining traction lines were all built in or prior to the early 20th Century. In the city itself, you have the five subway-surface lines, which are traditional streetcar lines in West Philadelphia with stops at street corners, usually with the car in the middle of the street. Passengers do board and alight in traffic lanes in this situation. Once the lines move underground there are stations with ground level platforms. Route 15, on Girard Ave is a traditional surface streetcar line with some center of the street islands ( at ground level) but with significant street corner boarding. In the suburbs, the two former Red Arrow suburban lines which make use of ecxtensive PRW use stations wth ground level platforms on those PRW sections, but each of the two lines has some street running with street corner stops. The Norristown High Speed Line ( former P&W) is all PRW, grade separated third rail operated, and its stations are high level as are the car floors.--- It is not likely that those lines either in the city or in the suburbs which currently use ground level loading would ever convert, even in the subway, or on the PRW sections, to stations with high level platforms, because this would require cars to have provision for both ground level and high level loading, and though some have tried, no one has ever devleoped a really satisfactory automatic trap system so that the lone operator isn't required to manaully raise and lower the traps. And I doubt very much that SEPTA will ever be willing to relocate the tracks away from the middle of the streets in the city, or on the street running portions in the suburbs of its more than a century old surface lines.

walt wrote:Philadelphia's remaining traction lines were all built in or prior to the early 20th Century. In the city itself, you have the five subway-surface lines, which are traditional streetcar lines in West Philadelphia with stops at street corners, usually with the car in the middle of the street. Passengers do board and alight in traffic lanes in this situation. Once the lines move underground there are stations with ground level platforms. Route 15, on Girard Ave is a traditional surface streetcar line with some center of the street islands ( at ground level) but with significant street corner boarding. In the suburbs, the two former Red Arrow suburban lines which make use of ecxtensive PRW use stations wth ground level platforms on those PRW sections, but each of the two lines has some street running with street corner stops. The Norristown High Speed Line ( former P&W) is all PRW, grade separated third rail operated, and its stations are high level as are the car floors.--- It is not likely that those lines either in the city or in the suburbs which currently use ground level loading would ever convert, even in the subway, or on the PRW sections, to stations with high level platforms, because this would require cars to have provision for both ground level and high level loading, and though some have tried, no one has ever devleoped a really satisfactory automatic trap system so that the lone operator isn't required to manaully raise and lower the traps. And I doubt very much that SEPTA will ever be willing to relocate the tracks away from the middle of the streets in the city, or on the street running portions in the suburbs of its more than a century old surface lines.

Yes, but building platforms up to the entrance step height of the "city" rolling stock (not substantially higher than sidewalk level), is surely possible in all locations across the network and since you are probably going to need new vehicles soon and that these will almost certainly be low floor, and that (juding from photos and footage I've seen from as far back as the 1980s) some stops in wider streets already have platforms, these and the rebuilt stops will provide level boarding to the new vehicles.

Myrtone wrote:Yes, but building platforms up to the entrance step height of the "city" rolling stock (not substantially higher than sidewalk level), is surely possible in all locations across the network and since you are probably going to need new vehicles soon and that these will almost certainly be low floor, and that (juding from photos and footage I've seen from as far back as the 1980s) some stops in wider streets already have platforms, these and the rebuilt stops will provide level boarding to the new vehicles.

I would like to add that when Philadelphia orders new streetcars to replace the cars they have now, they will be expected to provide level boarding in one way or another in accordance with the "Americans with Disability Act". The existing streetcars can only operate because they were grandfathered. New streetcars will not be so lucky.

What is the maximum height difference between the plaftorm and the vehicle floor that would comply with federal law, assuming new vehicles stopping at new and rebuilt stops? Low floor rolling stock and platforms not substatially higher than the sidewalk are the only feasible way of providing level access at most stops on a typical street based system, and it's pretty hard to see how anyone could argue against this.

Interurbans are a different story in that they stop at much less frequent stops and for that matter. Level access to low floor vehicles still requries a platform of some description, and stops/stations for interurban vehicles are (or should be) confined to locations where one can make the platforms higher than the standard wheel diameter. I have read before that many (though not all) US interurbans stopped at off-street interchanges rather than in the middle of the street, and so high platforms could have been applied had they survived.

Philadelphia will have a problem raising the loading level on the surface portions of the subway-surface lines because, except for the portion of Route 36 running on Island Road, the tracks for those lines are in the middle of streets which do not have sufficient room for the installation of an island platform. Renovating the platforms in the subway tunnel by raising their level would not be a problem. Providing raised level loading on the two former Red Arrow suburban/interurban lines would not be a problem except for the portion of the Sharon Hill Line ( Route 102) on Springfield Road and on Woodland Ave in Aldan ( the street running portion of that line) and the portion of the Media Line (Route 101) running on State Street in Media. The Media problem could be solved, though probably not satisfactorily for Media riders, by ending the line at the end of the PRW just outside the borough limits. There might be enough room to build island platforms on Woodland Ave. in Aldan on the Sharon Hill Line but there isn't enough room on Springfield Road. It WILL be interesting to see what happens when SEPTA tries to replace its current equipment

walt wrote:Philadelphia will have a problem raising the loading level on the surface portions of the subway-surface lines because, except for the portion of Route 36 running on Island Road, the tracks for those lines are in the middle of streets which do not have sufficient room for the installation of an island platform. Renovating the platforms in the subway tunnel by raising their level would not be a problem.

What do you mean by an island platform? If you mean between the tracks (center island), then existing rolling stock would not be able to use them because they only have doors on the right. Those streets may not have sufficient room for side island platforms. That's the point of the trafficable kerb extension, it can provide level access where side island plaftorms would not work.

Myrtone wrote:

walt wrote:Philadelphia will have a problem raising the loading level on the surface portions of the subway-surface lines because, except for the portion of Route 36 running on Island Road, the tracks for those lines are in the middle of streets which do not have sufficient room for the installation of an island platform. Renovating the platforms in the subway tunnel by raising their level would not be a problem.

What do you mean by an island platform? If you mean between the tracks (center island), then existing rolling stock would not be able to use them because they only have doors on the right. Those streets may not have sufficient room for side island platforms. That's the point of the trafficable kerb extension, it can provide level access where side island plaftorms would not work.

An Island platform ( and this is my term), is a narrow platform installed in the travel portion of a moderately wide street between the tracks in the center of the street and the curb. The ones in Philly ( and Baltimore, during that city's streetcar era) were narrow enough that there was still a travel lane for automobiles between the platform and the curb. Obviously not all streets are wide enough to accomodate such a platform, and even on those lines which had them, there were usually only several of them along the entire route. They were not between the tracks, so car with right hand doors could stll load and unload as usual, the islands just allowed passengers to not have to cross in front of moving automobile traffic in order to board a car, they could wait for the car on the island. Of course they still had to cross the traffic lane to GET to the island, but that's another matter. ( NYC Subway .org has a photo, in the Philadelphia Section of its photos of other transit systems, of a Route 15 PCC car stopped at one of these platforms.) And of course that is my point------ All of the existing Philly city surface routes are such that it is not possible to install this kind of platform at every surface street corner, so it will not be possible to elimiate ground level loading on any of those lines. You could easily raise the platform level in the stations in the subway, but then you would have to have cars with dual loading capacity ( ground level and high level) which would require some kind of a trap to cover the steps at high level platforms. Even if someone was able to design a serviceable automatic trap ( and no one has, to date) I suspect that the cost, and inconvenience factor will still be considered to be too high for most transit systems---- especially SEPTA.

What you call an island platform is really more specifically a side island platform. I found a photo of the sort of stop you mean. Of course it's not possible to put side island platforms at every street corner, but drive over platforms may still be possible in a lot more locations. I checked the Philladelphia section on NYCsubway.org and couldn't the photo you mentioned. Drive over platforms are the only way to eliminate ground level boarding at those locations. Raisng the platforms in the subway to the floor levels of the current fleet would make them incompadible with low floor vehicles, which the new rolling stock will almost certainly be. But undergound stops could still be provided with platforms not substatially higher than the sidewark level. Undergound stops should not only have platforms but platform screen doors.

electricron wrote:

Myrtone wrote:Yes, but building platforms up to the entrance step height of the "city" rolling stock (not substantially higher than sidewalk level), is surely possible in all locations across the network and since you are probably going to need new vehicles soon and that these will almost certainly be low floor, and that (juding from photos and footage I've seen from as far back as the 1980s) some stops in wider streets already have platforms, these and the rebuilt stops will provide level boarding to the new vehicles.

I would like to add that when Philadelphia orders new streetcars to replace the cars they have now, they will be expected to provide level boarding in one way or another in accordance with the "Americans with Disability Act". The existing streetcars can only operate because they were grandfathered. New streetcars will not be so lucky.

Additionally, it should be noted that buses stop next to the curb and can kneel to meet the sidewalk, again, streetcars are not so lucky in those respects. A low floor bus can be accessible at existing bus stops provided that can drop to meet the footpath. A streetcar (whether would kneel or non) needs both low floors and platforms stops, the only difference a kneeling mechanism would make is that the platforms could be made slightly lower. Apparently rail vehicles aren't suitbale for kneeling.