Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
There are no stats, although I did mention ridership density for Crenshaw North being in the 10,000+ range. At-grade LRT works for geographically smaller cities with significantly smaller populations, Calgary being a great example.
For core LA, at-grade LRT is not a viable alternative for the simple fact that most arterials aren’t wide enough. And even if you were yo have street-running rail, think about how slow and unreliable it would be. It only takes one idiot driver to ruin the commutes of hundreds of thousands of people.
The difference between HRT and LRT is grade-separation, frequency, and capacity, not the rolling stock itself.
Manila:
• Video Link |
That's simply not true. LRT can be grade separated and even underground like a subway, case in point the first LRT in North America, in Edmonton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay/En...cember2019.jpg
These trains have greater frequencies than LA's D/Purple Line heavy rail subway (5 min peak vs LA's 10 min peak). Edmonton's LRT carries about 115,000 people per day compared with 135,000 on the LA Purple Line - not far off.
The difference between HRT and LRT absolutely is rolling stock (which is how it has higher capacity more easily), but not grade separation or frequency. You're confusing LRT with streetcars, which none of the LRT lines in LA are. All of LA's rail lines are separated from traffic, even if surface level LRT, allowing for speeds not much slower than max HRT speeds (which they rarely get to anyway). Meanwhile portions of HRT in other cities (like Toronto and Atlanta) are not sub-surface. Others still are above ground (as in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, and Vancouver), which is something that LRT has been shown to do as well (as seen in Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton).
You could easily build an extension of the L/Gold Line underground through DTLA and then down Avalon through South Central, also underground (or elevated). It would be LRT still but have similar grade separation to traditional HRT systems.