The difference between streetcars and light rail

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

During the 1970s, urban planners were only wildly successful with two new metro systems: DC's metro and BART.

don't forget MARTA, or was that not "wildly successful?"

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Actually, Ottawa seems to be bending backwards to avoid any at-grade intersections, let along street-grade portions. (Unless the NCC gets its way with Richmond Rd, god forbid)

But then again, what if it does have a grade intersection? Tokyo's metro has level intersections but no one considers it anything less than a full metro with capacity which outstrips anything in North America.

Ottawa's future expansion plans wont be just one or two level crossings, but nearly entirely at grade, which will dramatically change the style of the currently u/c line.

Any train line in Tokyo that also has level crossings is not technically a metro line.

Why do people find this offensive?

Japan is famous for their heavy rail commuter style systems. They are not metros. The fully grade separated subway lines are metros.

[Aylmer]

For at-grade portions, the only possibility I could think of is the NCC's Richmond proposal which is FAR from being agreed upon. The city's current plans are completely and totally grade-separated: the highway median alignment in Orleans, the Scott Street trench in Westboro, the Transitway to Baseline (with new underpasses at Iris and Baseline) and a new tunnel and alignment along the 417 to Bayshore.

I don't find it offensive - in fact, I'm working on a proposal for a nouveau-tramway-style surface LRT system in my hometown - it just isn't correct in Ottawa's case.

[Metro-One]

I dont know why but I remember seeing Ottawa's future lines / phases being largely at grade, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me or the plans have changed since then (was a couple years ago).

Either way, the confederation line being built is a true metro line.

[Surrealplaces]

Agree. I would tend to look at whether the cars run on streets in mixed traffic, the number of cars joined together and the distance between stops as main difference between the two. The biggest difference being whether the cars run on streets with mixed traffic. If so then it truly is a streetcar.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Easier, yes, but it's an important distinction to make. Something like Calgary's C-Train and Toronto's streetcar system operate very differently and serve very different roles as a part of their city's transportation system - it would be disingenuous to call them the same thing just because they use the same vehicle technology.

The way I see it is that streetcars provide local service (basically a bus on tracks) while LRT operates as a higher level mass transit system (a sort of light metro). There are some where the lines can be a little blurry, but generally it's pretty easy to identify which category a system falls into.

[Surrealplaces]

In the case of Edmonton's system, it isn't fully grade separated, but it has complete right of way on all sections, which for all intents and purposes is not much different than being completed grade separated.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Heavy Rail and Light Rail are poor definitions to use, because there are many heavy rail lines that run at grade and cross streets here in Japan (all the commuter rail systems). And there are light rail vehicles that run on fully grade separated systems.

The terms that should be used are Metro and non-Metro.

For a Canadian example, Vancouver skytrain, Toronto Subway, and Montreal Subway are all metro systems. Full grade separation. Toronto is the most traditional metro in Canada (Steel wheels, driven, heavy rail, long trains). Skytrain is automatic and technically uses light rail vehicles (except the Canada Line's short but technically heavy rail vehicles) Also steel wheels. Montreal's trains are long but narrow and have rubber wheels.

Then there are the non metro systems, Calgary and Edmonton. They use LRT vehicles that mix with traffic in parts and have many at grade crossings and stations.

Ottawa's new system is a tricky one. The first phase is fully separated (metro) but future phases will make it a non-metro due to planned street grade portions.

[Metro-One]

Even so it does not meet the criteria for true metro. I am not puling this out of my but, it is the dictionary definition, and the most clear distinction considering urban rail IMO. Edmonton LRT currently could not operate automatically if desired, but any true metro can.

Currently the Edmonton LRT is definitely close to being a true metro. (sadly their future extensions include much more at grade rail, instead of the reverse).

[Surrealplaces]

I know that. That's why I said 'for all intents and purposes' they aren't really any different. Yes, the true metros could be technically be operated automatically, but in the end most aren't operated automatically and even if they were it makes no difference. In the end you can still move the exact same amount of people from point A to Z in the same fashion with either definition if you want.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Even so it does not meet the criteria for true metro. I am not puling this out of my but, it is the dictionary definition, and the most clear distinction considering urban rail IMO. Edmonton LRT currently could not operate automatically if desired, but any true metro can.

Currently the Edmonton LRT is definitely close to being a true metro. (sadly their future extensions include much more at grade rail, instead of the reverse).

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I dont know why but I remember seeing Ottawa's future lines / phases being largely at grade, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me or the plans have changed since then (was a couple years ago).

Either way, the confederation line being built is a true metro line.

Aha - you're thinking of the N-S LRT plan which was at-grade downtown and along most of its route.



Dodged a bullet there... As a backbone of a rapid transit system expected to carry more passengers per year than Atlanta, PATH or Los Angeles' metro after its first phase, a surface line downtown just wouldn't do.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Heavy Rail and Light Rail are poor definitions to use, because there are many heavy rail lines that run at grade and cross streets here in Japan (all the commuter rail systems). And there are light rail vehicles that run on fully grade separated systems.

The terms that should be used are Metro and non-Metro.

For a Canadian example, Vancouver skytrain, Toronto Subway, and Montreal Subway are all metro systems. Full grade separation. Toronto is the most traditional metro in Canada (Steel wheels, driven, heavy rail, long trains). Skytrain is automatic and technically uses light rail vehicles (except the Canada Line's short but technically heavy rail vehicles) Also steel wheels. Montreal's trains are long but narrow and have rubber wheels.

Then there are the non metro systems, Calgary and Edmonton. They use LRT vehicles that mix with traffic in parts and have many at grade crossings and stations.

Ottawa's new system is a tricky one. The first phase is fully separated (metro) but future phases will make it a non-metro due to planned street grade portions.

Your definition of metro vs. non-metro is even more arbitrary than light rail vs. street car



Anyway... back to the original question. I think the definition of light rail is sort of like US Supreme Court's definition of pornography - you can't define it by measures but you know it is porn when you see it

What is art vs. pornography? What is streetcar vs. light rail? Well, in both cases, it depends on one's perspective and the context in which the material (in this case, rail line) is presented.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Ottawa's future expansion plans wont be just one or two level crossings, but nearly entirely at grade, which will dramatically change the style of the currently u/c line.

Any train line in Tokyo that also has level crossings is not technically a metro line.

Why do people find this offensive?

Japan is famous for their heavy rail commuter style systems. They are not metros. The fully grade separated subway lines are metros.

It's not offensive... just meaningless.

Grade separation is not a meaningful way to distinguish service modes. Some JR line like Yamanote are entirely within urban area and runs a subway-like schedule and service. Calling it "non-metro" just because it has a few street crossings is completely meaningless.

[Nouvellecosse]

Pointing to a few odd exceptions and saying it makes the definitions meaningless is like saying terms like"man and woman" are meaningless since it's possible to find women or men with an exception to every characteristic we consider masculine or feminine. There are women who are big, tall, have short hair, tiny breasts, are attracted to other women, like sports, and never wear skirts or dresses, so that must mean it's silly to call her a woman just because she has female reproductive organs and that we shouldn't call anyone a man or a woman since there are some people who blur the lines.

Well in the vast majority of cases the terms tend to work reasonably well so letting a small number of exceptions needlessly obfuscate things is a bit silly. Being pedantic is supposed to add precision and clarity not destroy it and in the majority of times these terms are useful, and when they aren't one can simply add a brief caveat.

[llamaorama]

Maybe a better question would look at the technical aspects of each.

Many cost per mile quotes for new streetcars come in less than for mostly at grade LRT lines. I ask why Houston didn't use the same vehicles and construction methods on the original phase of the Metro Red Line as the Portland Streetcar, which AFAIK was a fraction of the cost even though it's only 2 miles shorter and a few years older.

I get the logic of going with heavier duty vehicles and infrastructure for systems like Dallas or Denver where the lines are fairly long and the trains move pretty fast, but it seems like the functional difference is blurred with some other city's networks, specifically Houston and Phoenix.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Heavy Rail and Light Rail are poor definitions to use, because there are many heavy rail lines that run at grade and cross streets here in Japan (all the commuter rail systems). And there are light rail vehicles that run on fully grade separated systems.

The terms that should be used are Metro and non-Metro.

For a Canadian example, Vancouver skytrain, Toronto Subway, and Montreal Subway are all metro systems. Full grade separation. Toronto is the most traditional metro in Canada (Steel wheels, driven, heavy rail, long trains). Skytrain is automatic and technically uses light rail vehicles (except the Canada Line's short but technically heavy rail vehicles) Also steel wheels. Montreal's trains are long but narrow and have rubber wheels.

Then there are the non metro systems, Calgary and Edmonton. They use LRT vehicles that mix with traffic in parts and have many at grade crossings and stations.

Ottawa's new system is a tricky one. The first phase is fully separated (metro) but future phases will make it a non-metro due to planned street grade portions.

while it might make more sense to focus solely on usage, you have just replaced one confusion with another. the same trains having both labels depending on where they are located.

it seems there is such a wide range of rail transit stock styles and usages no either-or labels fit perfectly well.

[Metro-One]

But that is the thing, rail systems aren't binary.

LRT only refers to the vehicle stock.

Metro only applies to its grade separation (and only metros can be automatic, which is a pretty clear separation IMO).

So an urban rail system can be both LRT and a metro, or HRT and a metro, or HRT and non metro, or LRT and non metro.

It is clear in that a tram will never be a metro, and a metro will never be a tram. That is one clear distinction.

So again, it is not a perfect science, but all the official definitions of what constitutes a true "metro" is full grade separation.

It is just another method to help weigh and categorize urban rail systems. It is not the only way, but it is one way.

I don't see why some are so hostile to this.

Most of the urban rail systems in Japan (aside form their subways, which are metros) are not metros. Instead they are very high frequency HRT commuter rail systems.

I actually really like this HRT form (they whistle through rail crossings at what must be 90kmh) and wish we had more of them in NA instead of the at grade LRT approach.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But that is the thing, rail systems aren't binary.

LRT only refers to the vehicle stock.

Metro only applies to its grade separation (and only metros can be automatic, which is a pretty clear separation IMO).

So an urban rail system can be both LRT and a metro, or HRT and a metro, or HRT and non metro, or LRT and non metro.

It is clear in that a tram will never be a metro, and a metro will never be a tram. That is one clear distinction.

So again, it is not a perfect science, but all the official definitions of what constitutes a true "metro" is full grade separation.

It is just another method to help weigh and categorize urban rail systems. It is not the only way, but it is one way.

I don't see why some are so hostile to this.

Most of the urban rail systems in Japan (aside form their subways, which are metros) are not metros. Instead they are very high frequency HRT commuter rail systems.

I actually really like this HRT form (they whistle through rail crossings at what must be 90kmh) and wish we had more of them in NA instead of the at grade LRT approach.

Whose definition? Yours?

Seems like it is completely arbitrary to choose grade separation as a demarcation for rail service. Might as well say "metro" is run with blue train, and "non metro" is every other color.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Pointing to a few odd exceptions and saying it makes the definitions meaningless is like saying terms like"man and woman" are meaningless since it's possible to find women or men with an exception to every characteristic we consider masculine or feminine. There are women who are big, tall, have short hair, tiny breasts, are attracted to other women, like sports, and never wear skirts or dresses, so that must mean it's silly to call her a woman just because she has female reproductive organs and that we shouldn't call anyone a man or a woman since there are some people who blur the lines.

Well in the vast majority of cases the terms tend to work reasonably well so letting a small number of exceptions needlessly obfuscate things is a bit silly. Being pedantic is supposed to add precision and clarity not destroy it and in the majority of times these terms are useful, and when they aren't one can simply add a brief caveat.

I'm not sure who you are addressing this but I think you have your logic backwards.

Let's use your male-female example... women who never wears skirt are still women - agreed. If we follow your logic, then we would have to conclude that a lot of JR East line like the Yamanote are indeed "metro" - it runs like metro, serves like metro, and is used by people as metro; despite having a few street crossings. But under Metro-One's rigid definition, Yamanote can't be metro because of those street crossings.

So his insistence that street crossing has a specific meaning in the term "metro" is like saying people who wear pants are definitely men and cannot be women.

That does make the definition meaningless.

[Nouvellecosse]

No, it's you who has my analogy backwards. If you follow my example, it isn't how a person behaves that determines what gender they are and it isn't how a rail system behaves that determines in what category it falls. Women who have lots of characteristics that are often considered masculine are still referred to as woman rather than being called men, just like a commuter rail line that has a lot of characteristics that are often considered similar to a metro are still called commuter rail rather than called a metro.

Besides, there's no such thing as "it runs like metro, serves like metro, and is used by people as metro" because there are no characteristics that are specially metro. There are light rail and commuter rail and even bus services that run in a similar manner. There are always exceptions but there is a clear enough distinction on average that it's still pretty clear.

[Metro-One]

First quote for metro / rapid transit on wikipedia:

a type of high-capacity public transport generally found in urban areas.[1][2][3] Unlike buses, trams or light rail, rapid transit systems are electric railways that operate on an exclusive right-of-way, which cannot be accessed by pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort,[4] and which is often grade separated in tunnels or on elevated railways.

The free dictionary:

An urban passenger transportation system using elevated or underground trains or a combination of both.

Those are the first two definitions that pop up.

The ability for a rail system to operate automatically or not if wanted on its ROW is a huge discrepancy between systems.

Here, I will give you a parallel using roads.

Would you ever call a high capacity road with intersections a freeway? Nope! And correct maps will also make a clear distinction between highways (freeways) with full controlled access (interchanges) to those that don't (intersections, at grade crossings).

It is the same thing with urban rail.

[mhays]

Phenomenal post Cirrus. You should be Director of Explaining Transit to the Public.

Sometimes politics relates to semantics. Tacoma is in the Sound Transit agency vote/tax/service zone, and their train line was part of a coordinated series of improvements ranging from Seattle's light rail to suburban trunk bus lines. Calling Tacoma's line "light rail" was probably useful in selling it to voters. The gray area in terminology made this possible. It has some exclusive right of way but is substantially in traffic lanes so I think of it as a streetcar.