That's a good one; I'd call Guadalajara Line 4 light rail (Montreal's REM is not). And maybe Guadalajara knows something (or maybe something is present there) that isn't in Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Taipei, Toronto, Dublin, Lyon, Bordeaux, Utsunomiya, Porto, Tel Aviv, Seattle, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Edinburgh and so on and so on.
All LRVs are bespoke. Calgary has a large enough fleet to not have scale issues even on relatively small orders.
Sure, nobody builds passenger trains on spec. But that doesn't mean that using models that are built globally by the hundreds doesn't give us access to better bids that aren't there on models built by the dozen.
With lower platforms and a tighter turning radius, the benefit of low-floor LRT is that it can integrate well into an existing streetscape. For the NC portion of the Greenline a low-floor LRT is perfect.
However, the SE LRT has long sections where it's runs through industrial land and where it runs parallel to a heavy freight corridor, so you kind of lose the benefits of a low-floor LRT.
The benefits of a high-floor LRT is:
-Higher Speeds
-Higher passenger capacity
-Easier maintenance (Motor and chassis is more accessible)
If designed properly, a high-floor LRT system is very beneficial as it acts like a 'Dollar Store Metro system'.
Low floor trains can travel at the same speeds as high floor trains, and they have the same passenger capacity as high floor trains. (The low floor trains for the Green Line have a
much higher passenger capacity than the existing high floor trains, but that's because they're longer.)
I can't speak to maintenance, only to note that internationally it sure doesn't seem to be a big issue since low floor trains are selected in the vast majority of contexts. At some point, hiring two extra mechanics is cheaper than paying the extra capital costs of high floor LRT.
And there's no logic in saying that the benefits of low floor LRT don't apply to one half of the corridor, but will to the other half -- so we shouldn't use it. If it provides benefits, and no significant drawbacks, then use it.
The 'dollar store metro system' comment just baffles me. What drives cost are things like contracting model, speed of construction, cost of right of way, and cost of right of way structures. What provides the main benefits are protection of right of way, stop location and stop frequency; how high the train floor is does not matter to the core costs or benefits.
We built our initial LRT cheaply and we did it using high floor because low floor LRT hadn't yet been invented, and because the designers had a massive fear of pedestrians interacting with the tracks. The former has been solved and the latter was a mistake -- arguably only knowable in hindsight, but something we know today. We would not benefit from throwing away everything we and a hundred other cities have learned in the last 45 years, even though we did a pretty good job back then.
Building light rail that stops frequently where it is not needed is sometimes associated with an 'urban' approach to light rail that I think compromises the service. I'm thinking of the Valley Line in Edmonton -- especially the next phase, where the train will stop every four blocks all the way to 124th, and it will be painfully slow entering the downtown. (I'd also point to Holyrood and Strathearn on the existing line as being too close.) It's difficult to do that approach without low floor LRT, but picking low floor trains doesn't condemn you to this approach.
Building slow trains that stop every couple of blocks and are in mixed traffic is not a good investment (unless it can be done very cheaply). But a good LRT line that provides fast access can be built with either low floor or high floor vehicles, the difference is mostly whether we want more accessible and cheaper stations or not.
I favour automated, particularly for the north. Wouldn't the Canada Line be an answer to your question?
I'll turn it around and ask what city has built anything like Centre St recently? Some stretches of Edm's Valley Line? Generally less dense and they opted for just 500m of tunnel to climb the hill before running at-grade in DT. Do they have plans to extend further west at-grade?
Portland's E Burnside St looks very similar; built in the 80s but still looks like lower density than we have today on Centre. Their westside line from the 90s also has a similar stretch at the far outskirts. Looks like everything else they've built has had more exclusive ROW (like what we've typically done)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "like Centre St". I assume at grade, in the median of a road? In the Rainer Valley in Seattle along MLK. Canberra on Northbourne Road. University Ave in St. Paul Minnesota. The north end of line 1 in Guadalajara. Avenida Dels Tarrongers in Valencia. Boulevard Etats-Unis in Lyon. There's only so many places that have a right of way wide enough to handle both as well as a psychological need to retain both.
