Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesonov
LRT in Calgary is quite similar to the commuter-rail-model that you just described.
EDIT: to add that this is a bit of a double-edged sword. It has made the system quite successful (by most measures) but it has also meant that it serves the low density suburbs better than it serves higher density downtown neighbourhoods.
|
This topic is more complicated than the simple discussions we've had so far. LRT in Calgary is "done right" for true rapid transit, for the most part. I have to say that I don't know everything about the Calgary system, but they are burying what portions still run in street traffic, no?
So far as LRT vs Subway, the real point I was making is that modern LRT has to be in its own right of way to be considered true rapid transit (or vast majority in its own right of way, with almost no intersection hopping through traffic). And if you make LRT in its own right of way and pay for a quality system, it makes a lot of sense to go ahead and make it subway/metro grade with 3rd rail instead of investing in LRT technology, the costs become negligible between 3rd rail metro and LRT with it's own right of way.
LRT as a street solution/local transit is good only in truly urban settings (for example, Toronto's amazing streetcar network is North America's largest and most successful LRT model, and one of the few examples in North America where LRT makes sense, along with San Francisco). Most of these other cities that are forming LRT systems really have a weird implementation... Minneapolis and Denver both have good starter systems, Denver slightly more advanced, but Denver has tried to make it's LRT a one-size-fits-all solution, both a rapid transit city-wide mode and a local transit mode in the central core... Its not my favorite implementation. Denver and Minneapolis are bona fide, suburban type American cities. There isn't much urbanity there, so the street portions work downtown I suppose, but they strangle the entire solution as a "rapid transit" network.
American cities are implementing LRT in ways that are unheard of in Europe, again Berlin is my favorite model. The backbone of transportation in Berlin is the heavy rail metro/rapid transit, then it has tons of feeder LRT streetcar systems/trams that are 5, 8, 10km in length.
American metros will have LRT lines that go for 30-50km, mixed as local transit and rapid transit. It literally makes no sense what-so-ever, and I didn't realize it until the past 5 years when I really started to examine the different uses of LRT around the world. But save for New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and a handful of other cities there really isn't much urbanity in America to speak of. It is amazing a nation with over 300 million people has so few urban settings, so few in fact you could count on your two hands.
Prev
Thats because people in Vancouver have become spoiled with trains arriving every 90 seconds on the Expo Line during peak hours. But I agree, frequent service is a major component in mass transit, but what you are missing out is that the Canada Line and indeed all of Vancouver's skytrain system has 2 huge advantages over all these new LRTs in the US, 100% GRADE SEPARATION and automated rolling stock. 
)
Linear Mode
