This is kind of where I fall with respect to the green line. I like both HF and LF for different reasons, but the incongruity of the whole design makes it hard to pick one. My main nitpick about LF is the handling large volumes of people. On the low floors systems I've been on, it didn't take a lot of people within the LRV to make it awkward for moving people around within the LRV, due to there being two different height variations and the arrangement of seating, etc...This was noticeable on Ottawa LRVs that weren't as busy as our LRT cars get. I can't imagine some of these busy lines in places like New York, or Tokyo where dozens of people are entering and exiting in a short period.Thanks. By "like Centre St" I mean at-grade down a relatively narrow ROW that is the busiest bus corridor in a city. I really appreciate the examples though and look forward to some street view exploration (particularly Valencia because I spent a couple weeks there 20 years ago). Quick follow-up question: how many of those went to absurd lengths to grade separate a long section of track?
We always end up on the LF vs HF debate, but the complaint is really about the incongruity of the whole design. LF at street level is totally fine - especially if the ridership case isn't a slam dunk and you don't need to max out frequency. It's also great to invest in as much grade separation as possible - especially if the ridership case is really strong and it lets you move lots of people efficiently.
But our qualifying statements are reversed and we're spending silly money to facilitate compromised design without reaping substantial benefits (certainly not the degree we would with 8 Ave subway or fully automate north line).
There are obvious benefits to low floor as well, especially as already mentioned, it works nicely for the Centre Street portion.