Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
So what exactly is your point about rolling stock vis-a-vis capacity? How does it represent a fundamental difference between "HRT" and "LRT" if some LRVs are wider than some of the HRVs running on three of the world's top 10 metro systems and LRT lines having the capacity to draw the same ridership as HRT lines?
You said the following:
Does that mean BART is more of a HRT system than the Paris Metro?
As for frequency, LA's two "HRT" lines are limited to 4-minute headways because they interline between Union Station and Wilshire/Vermont. More to the point, frequency/headways and ridership are correlational, not causal. And ridership is not a reflection of capacity, but rather more locally specific factors such as the nature of the corridor itself, demand, quality of service, overall transit appetite, etc.
You're painting with a very broad brush and totally ignoring important physical, cultural, and logistical differences.
|
The rolling stock used in HRT and LRT is generally different. You said:
Quote:
|
The difference between HRT and LRT is grade-separation, frequency, and capacity, not the rolling stock itself.
|
Light rail vehicles and heavy rail vehicles are different. Yes, some HRT vehicles are narrower, but generally speaking, they have higher capacity per train car, and the technology is different (for one thing, it's much older).
We've already disputed your claims of grade-separation and frequency being the distinction. LRT is generally in a dedicated right of way not unlike HRT. Frequencies can be greater and trains can run faster than HRT systems (not exclusively - merely it can happen).
So what's left? The rolling stock and how that functions in terms of station design and so forth. If anyone is ignoring anything, it's you - myself and others have clearly destroyed your points and yet you still latch onto your same talking points.