Beltline_B
Senior Member
I’ve had no experience Low Floor Vehicles and cant really comment but I always thought staying consistent with the vehicles for all three lines might be advantageous.
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Operater
Active Member
Hi Group,
I have to Admit that I am in Favour of Trains that are Similar to what Calgary is Getting now but will go with the Low Floor Cars on the Green Line. Cost Wise I saw some Ideas of the Line Going UP Hill and through D T. Felt it was a Cheaper Alternate Cost Wise as Well. (My Views Only) Somehow I Feel the Tunnel Part is an An Expensive Choice to Make for the Money to B Spent.What Happens is Anyone;s Guess Really, I Feel there is LOTS of Room for Improvement, I Notice that what ever Edmonton Does We Follow as Well. The Only thing We Didn't Do was Overhaul and Rebuild Our 1st Generation L R T Cars like Edmonton. Will B most Interested to See how it all turns Out,
Tnx
Operater.
I have to Admit that I am in Favour of Trains that are Similar to what Calgary is Getting now but will go with the Low Floor Cars on the Green Line. Cost Wise I saw some Ideas of the Line Going UP Hill and through D T. Felt it was a Cheaper Alternate Cost Wise as Well. (My Views Only) Somehow I Feel the Tunnel Part is an An Expensive Choice to Make for the Money to B Spent.What Happens is Anyone;s Guess Really, I Feel there is LOTS of Room for Improvement, I Notice that what ever Edmonton Does We Follow as Well. The Only thing We Didn't Do was Overhaul and Rebuild Our 1st Generation L R T Cars like Edmonton. Will B most Interested to See how it all turns Out,
Tnx
Operater.
hollahollaholla
New Member
I've rode the tram in Montpellier France and once you're outside of the city centre there is no difference. They went about 80kmh on their own dedicated tracks. I feel like low floor is a better way to integrate with the surrounding environment like a dense city centre but if the train is underground the only benefit I can see is cost to build stations.
Operater
Active Member
Hi All,
Top Speed for Most L R T Systems Averages to 80 KPH, 100 at the Very Most. For the Green Line on Centre St North It will B interesting to See what the Average Speed on the P R W will B. Can.t B Very High with all the Traffic Lights unless the Lights/Intersections are Geared in Favour of Trains,
Tnx,
Operater,
Top Speed for Most L R T Systems Averages to 80 KPH, 100 at the Very Most. For the Green Line on Centre St North It will B interesting to See what the Average Speed on the P R W will B. Can.t B Very High with all the Traffic Lights unless the Lights/Intersections are Geared in Favour of Trains,
Tnx,
Operater,
darwink
Senior Member
The amount of your car that is low floor depends on how much your willing to pay for, as bogies that cross the car are way easier to make. 100% low floor exists of course, but it does bind you to a floor layout that doesn’t flow as well as the new high floor LRVs.
As for interoperability - there will be enough cars on each system that I don’t think it matters. Each has its own heavy maintenance space. If this ends up as a full P3 (likely) you wouldn’t be swapping any services between the lines anyways.
As for interoperability - there will be enough cars on each system that I don’t think it matters. Each has its own heavy maintenance space. If this ends up as a full P3 (likely) you wouldn’t be swapping any services between the lines anyways.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Only the the first phase is mostly grade separated. Nearly all of phase 2 will be on street.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
To add to the never-ending low v. high floor debate, I think it comes down to whether the Greenline is built in a way that leverages what low-floor trains can do. As others have mentioned, many examples of equally efficient/fast systems exist with both technologies. Like all planning problems, it comes down to implementation.
I prefer low-floor due to it's ability to integrate into communities allowing for transit-supportive neighbourhoods to be created without the expense of full grade separation that is only cost-effective at much higher densities than are realistic along the Greenline route. Stations can be small and accessible, easily weaved right into the urban fabric.
But to get all of low-floor advantages, transit has to be the *real* priority. I don't mean just green light timing (although obviously that too). Densities need to be increased, parking has to be restricted, vehicle speeds have to be reduced all in the name of creating a sustainable, transit-supportive corridor where pedestrians are truly favoured. Even small stuff - curb heights, lane widths and signal timing can't be ignored in a truly transit-friendly neighbourhood. We have few, if any, existing local examples that demonstrate the attention to detail required to be as successful as the best low-floor systems in Europe.
It's not that one technology is better than the other, but can we pull off what is required to make transit truly a priority (and therefore successful)? Apart from 7th Avenue, Sunnyside Station, SAIT and maybe Westbrook (if development occurs) Calgary's current high-floor system has proven to be a failure to create truly transit-friendly areas. Almost all LRT expansions were partnered with freeway or road-widening projects which undermined Transit's travel time advantages, ballooned the project's costs and sucked up transit-adjacent land for interchanges, high-speed arterials and park-and-rides. Not the recipe for high transit ridership, sustainable development or a leading multi-modal city.
If your transit projects tend to decrease car travel times more than transit travel times while supporting ever increasing overall road vehicle-kilometres travelled (e.g. Crowchild LRT + freeway development) you might not be getting the best bang for your buck in transit investments.
This isn't the technology's fault of course, nor necessarily Calgary Transit's either on previous projects. But I think it illustrates that the discussions of high and low floor technologies are missing the main challenge regardless of which one we pick. I would argue that low-floor has more upside, but only if we do a very good job at the details, otherwise it probably doesn't matter which one we pick.
I prefer low-floor due to it's ability to integrate into communities allowing for transit-supportive neighbourhoods to be created without the expense of full grade separation that is only cost-effective at much higher densities than are realistic along the Greenline route. Stations can be small and accessible, easily weaved right into the urban fabric.
But to get all of low-floor advantages, transit has to be the *real* priority. I don't mean just green light timing (although obviously that too). Densities need to be increased, parking has to be restricted, vehicle speeds have to be reduced all in the name of creating a sustainable, transit-supportive corridor where pedestrians are truly favoured. Even small stuff - curb heights, lane widths and signal timing can't be ignored in a truly transit-friendly neighbourhood. We have few, if any, existing local examples that demonstrate the attention to detail required to be as successful as the best low-floor systems in Europe.
It's not that one technology is better than the other, but can we pull off what is required to make transit truly a priority (and therefore successful)? Apart from 7th Avenue, Sunnyside Station, SAIT and maybe Westbrook (if development occurs) Calgary's current high-floor system has proven to be a failure to create truly transit-friendly areas. Almost all LRT expansions were partnered with freeway or road-widening projects which undermined Transit's travel time advantages, ballooned the project's costs and sucked up transit-adjacent land for interchanges, high-speed arterials and park-and-rides. Not the recipe for high transit ridership, sustainable development or a leading multi-modal city.
If your transit projects tend to decrease car travel times more than transit travel times while supporting ever increasing overall road vehicle-kilometres travelled (e.g. Crowchild LRT + freeway development) you might not be getting the best bang for your buck in transit investments.
This isn't the technology's fault of course, nor necessarily Calgary Transit's either on previous projects. But I think it illustrates that the discussions of high and low floor technologies are missing the main challenge regardless of which one we pick. I would argue that low-floor has more upside, but only if we do a very good job at the details, otherwise it probably doesn't matter which one we pick.
Last edited:
Totally agree with this. I have been leaning on the side of high floor trains, but I do see the advantage of low floor trains as a better urban interface...that said, that urban interface needs to be done properly as you mentioned. If the train is going to run down a middle of a freeway type road like Memorial Drive or Crowchild, then the low floor advantage is wasted anyways.
On a side note I would add Lions Park and Banff Trail as good examples of current stations that integrate well with the surroundings. The Northwest part of the Red Line starts out from downtown as a transit line and turns into a commuter line.
On a side note I would add Lions Park and Banff Trail as good examples of current stations that integrate well with the surroundings. The Northwest part of the Red Line starts out from downtown as a transit line and turns into a commuter line.
Some updates from my Green Line update e-mail.
Green Line LRT: Upcoming Open Houses
Happy New Year!
Thanks to all our new subscribers for signing up over the last few weeks. We hope you find this newsletter helpful.
Green Line in my Community
Starting this month through March, we’re looking for your feedback on how the Green Line will look and feel in your community. Feedback collected at these sessions will be used to develop technical documents that will guide Green Line construction for the first 20 km of the line. Starting January 16 there will also be opportunities to provide your input online. There’s over 20 events happening between 16 Avenue N and 126 Avenue S.E. in the next two months. Find an event near you.
See you there!
Construction updates
Major Green Line construction on tracks and stations will begin in 2020.
In the meantime, work is already underway on several early construction projects, which are being done in preparation for larger Green Line construction in 2020. This includes utility relocation, landfill remediation, and road and transit improvements. Active projects include:
Green Line LRT: Upcoming Open Houses
Happy New Year!
Thanks to all our new subscribers for signing up over the last few weeks. We hope you find this newsletter helpful.
Green Line in my Community
Starting this month through March, we’re looking for your feedback on how the Green Line will look and feel in your community. Feedback collected at these sessions will be used to develop technical documents that will guide Green Line construction for the first 20 km of the line. Starting January 16 there will also be opportunities to provide your input online. There’s over 20 events happening between 16 Avenue N and 126 Avenue S.E. in the next two months. Find an event near you.
See you there!
Construction updates
Major Green Line construction on tracks and stations will begin in 2020.
In the meantime, work is already underway on several early construction projects, which are being done in preparation for larger Green Line construction in 2020. This includes utility relocation, landfill remediation, and road and transit improvements. Active projects include:
- Pop Davies Athletic Park
- Highfield and Ogden Landfills
- Douglas Glen Park and Ride
- Fish Creek Forcemain
Habanero
Active Member
Major construction starts in 2020, I wish we could bump that timeline up, but I understand they have to get prep done first.
Oddball
Senior Member
Hrm... I don't know if I like it.
But, in a good way, if that makes any sense?
It is unique, at least in so far as it looks entirely unlike any other C-Train stations. The shape is compelling, but the plastic-like material and the large stretches of windowless outer wall give it a sterile feel. Naturally, I'd have to wait to see it in reality before have a real opinion of it, but that's the impression I get. It's nice that there's some proposed architecture out there for our city that's interesting enough to feel conflicted about.
But, in a good way, if that makes any sense?
It is unique, at least in so far as it looks entirely unlike any other C-Train stations. The shape is compelling, but the plastic-like material and the large stretches of windowless outer wall give it a sterile feel. Naturally, I'd have to wait to see it in reality before have a real opinion of it, but that's the impression I get. It's nice that there's some proposed architecture out there for our city that's interesting enough to feel conflicted about.
Habanero
Active Member
I had no idea part of the Green Line was to be elevated. 
Habanero
Active Member
They are kinda sterile. I honestly feel the stations don't need much work as far as the design of the station itself goes. Make them like the Sunnyside station, or the Shaganappi Station and I'm happy.