Light Rail Boom

[Sekkle]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

The LRT/HRT distinction has to do with the mass of the vehicles themselves, as HRT vehicles are generally much larger and heavier than LRT vehicles, and operate in larger consists which are unable to operate individually as LRT vehicles can.

HRT vehicles are actually usually smaller and lighter than LRVs. For example, NYC subway cars are between 75,000 and 90,000 lbs (34,000 to 41,000 kg) and ~ 50-75ft long. Chicago's L cars are generally a little shorter and weigh less (wikipedia gives a weight of 54,140 lb and length of 48ft for the 2600 series). By contrast, Portland's newest MAX LRVs weigh 99,500 lbs (48,988 kg) and are 96.4ft long.

I think the reason it's called "heavy" rail is the much longer consists as you mentioned, and thus "heavier" passenger capacity.

[mfastx]

HRT systems are much superior to LRT, but that doesn't mean that we should stop building LRT. LRT is still vastly superior to buses.

The main reason most cities are building LRT lines is because they are still rail with relatively high capacity/frequency, but cheaper that HRT.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by mfastx

HRT systems are much superior to LRT, but that doesn't mean that we should stop building LRT. LRT is still vastly superior to buses.

The main reason most cities are building LRT lines is because they are still rail with relatively high capacity/frequency, but cheaper that HRT.

LRT can have high capacity/frequency, but as I showed on the last page, most of the newer systems in the US are running with poor frequency (thus poor capacity).

[cabotp]

The common way that the APTA determines the difference between Light Rail and Heavy Rail. Is that Light Rail usually has a lower capacity than heavy rail. Also heavy rail is always completely grade separated and usually in a tunnel as has been the classic case or above ground in a system like the one in Chicago. While light rail can be both grade separated and at grade.

A general breakdown of the pphpd between the different types of systems

Street Car - ~7500 pphpd
Light Rail - ~18,000 pphpd
Heavy Rail - ~40,000 pphpd
Commuter Rail - ~48,000 pphpd.

Of course these numbers all depends on the number of cars on a train and the capacity of each car.

Systems like Vancouver's Skytrain and ones like it. Are more commonly referred to has light metro systems or light rapid transit. They have the grade separated characteristic of a heavy rail system. But they don't have the capacity of such systems.

[M II A II R II K]

Why a Streetcar Is Something to Be Desired


16 Sep 2010

By Patrick M. Condon



Read More: http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/16/StreetcarToBeDesired/

U.S. and Canadian cities built between 1880 and 1945 were streetcar cities. It was a time, very brief in retrospect, when people walked a lot but could get great distances by hopping on streetcars. By 1950, this system was utterly overthrown, rendered obsolete by the market penetration of the private automobile. Both walking and transit use dropped dramatically afterward, all but disappearing by 1990 in many fast-growing metropolitan areas.

- The collapse of that world constitutes a great loss, because the streetcar city form of urban development was a pattern that allowed the emerging middle class to live in single-family homes and was sustainable at the same time. Streetcar cities were walkable, transit accessible and virtually pollution free while still dramatically extending the distance citizens could cover during the day.

- First, the Great Depression froze economic activity; then the Second World War redirected economic activity to the war effort. By the 1950s, the economic pendulum had swung toward suburban development fueled by increasing car ownership. Not until the 1990s, during the decade of Vancouver's most intense densification, would the vision of four- storey buildings lining both sides of Kitsilano's 4th Avenue be realized.

- The streetcar city principle is not about the streetcar itself; it is about the system of which that the streetcar is a part. It is about the sustainable relationship between land use, walking and transportation that streetcar cities embody. The streetcar city principle combines at least four of the design rules discussed in the following chapters: (1) an interconnected street system, (2) a diversity of housing types, (3) a five-minute walking distance to commercial services and transit and (4) good jobs close to affordable homes.

- Close to half of urban residents in the United States and Canada live in districts once served by the streetcar. In these neighbourhoods, alternatives to the car are still available and buildings are inherently more energy efficient (due to shared walls, wind protection and smaller average unit sizes).

- While there is much debate about what precipitated the demise of North America's streetcar and interurban systems, one thing is certain. In 1949, the U.S. courts convicted National City Lines -- a "transit" company owned outright by General Motors, Firestone and Phillips Petroleum -- for conspiring to intentionally destroy streetcar systems in order to eliminate competition with the buses and cars GM produced.

- While it may seem impossible to envision today, Los Angeles once had the largest and most extensive system of streetcars and interurban lines in the world. In a few short years, this system was completely dismantled by National City Lines, at the same time that an enormous effort to lace the L.A. region with freeways was launched.

- It helps to start by asking what the optimal relationship is between land use and transit, and what transit mode would best support this optimum state. Similarly, how do an increasingly uncertain oil supply and rising concern over GHG emissions factor into our long-term transportation planning?

- Investment decisions made in Vancouver and elsewhere over the next 10 years will determine land use and transportation patterns that will last for the next 100 years. How can we choose the system that helps create the kind of energy, cost and low-GHG region that the future demands?

Hop on this idea: streetcar in Portland, Oregon.

[cabotp]

Oh Christ not this debate again

Welcome to world war 3 transit style in Vancouver.

In one corner you have the people like me who support a rapid transit (aka skytrain extension) to UBC.

In the other corner you have what I consider to be the whack job group who want to ride a nice looking at grade train so they can see all the nice shops as the train slowly goes through traffic. Of course they fail to realize that people don't give a damn about those shops and just want to get to where they are going as quickly as possible.

One big flaw in Mr Condon's idea is that not everyone lives in an area where everything is close to them. At some point they have to travel outside of that area. Which is why you need something more rapid and limited stopped as a back bone system.

That isn't to say that street cars are not good and they would be great as feeder routes. But a street car would never be good on a route like Broadway which is seriously missing a back bone system that moves masses of people quickly.

[SnyderBock]

Does anyone know if a light rail train can run on an EMU track (the EMU track would be dedicated, not shared with freight)? Are they the same gage track? If not, can light rail gage be inter-laid along with the EMU gage track? Are the EMU catenary systems compatible with light rail trains? If not, can they be made compatible?

[Sekkle]

I'd be surprised if they were a different gauge. I think most trains run on "standard" gauge tracks in the US. Depending on the width of the EMUs vs. the LRVs, there might be issues at stations. Likewise with the station platform height - LRT platforms are usually pretty low compared to other types of rail. I guess it varies from place to place based on rolling stock for the EMU boarding height, though. I don't know about the catenary systems.

[Mr Downtown]

There's no technical reason that light-rail vehicles can't share tracks with EMUs. Such an operation began in Karlsruhe a few years ago. Traditionally EMUs have operated on higher voltages, and with wider cars. But in the US it's forbidden by the FRA, because LRVs don't have the "buff strength" to survive collisions with much heavier mainline railroad equipment.

[M II A II R II K]

Have Streetcars Adequately Demonstrated Their Development-Generation Potential?


Sep 27th, 2010

By Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2638/

Relationships Between Streetcars and the Built Environment: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs...crp_syn_86.pdf

The most commonly cited argument for the development of new streetcar lines is that their implementation will result in the construction of new housing and commercial buildings in surrounding areas. Unfortunately, according to a new report by the Transportation Research Board, that link has yet to be substantiated by empirical evidence in most places where these new rail systems have been built. This does not mean that streetcars don’t work as development tools, merely that their value has not been demonstrated conclusively.

- The federal government currently has placed a major emphasis on funding such projects and dozens of U.S. cities have shown significant interest in investing local resources on them. That movement towards this new transportation mode, however, should be slowed until more research is undertaken.

- The report, written by Ron Golem and Janet Smith-Heimer, evaluates the thirteen “new” streetcar systems in the United States (it excludes New Orleans and San Francisco, which never took their historic lines out of operation). Five projects—in Kenosha, WI, Savannah, GA, Portland, OR, Memphis, TN, and Seattle, WA—are specifically described.

- Representatives of the other systems “believed that the streetcar had positively affected the physical built environment” but also “noted the critical lack of data and analysis to demonstrate this perception of positive benefit.” This represents a critical failure in the way cities have gone about developing these lines, since they have failed to show apart from in anecdote specific ways in which their projects have contributed to environmental improvements.

- All that said, in spite of the lack of existing information about the value of streetcars on producing development, there is a high likelihood that they do actually have an effect. Around the new light rail line in Charlotte, North Carolina, there has been $288.2 million in new housing and office space; a further $522 million of development is now under construction, even in face of the recession. This makes sense: Public investment in transportation is often the conduit for private investment in development.

A streetcar in Memphis, Tennessee Credit: Yonah Freemark

[J. Will]

Many of the newer streetcar lines have abysmal service frequency. Of course you're not going to attract much development with headways of 15 minutes (or even more).

Offer the kind of service levels that Toronto offers on the 510 Spadina, which operates at roughly two minute headways in each direction from approx. 7:30AM - 9PM on weekdays, and you'll certainly attract development. Or even the 504 King, which operates approx. every 2-5 minutes from 6:30AM - 10:30PM.

[miketoronto]

They don't attract development for two reasons.

-The development was going to happen anyway as many of these streetcars are built in downtowns which are already growing, such as Portland.

-Development is not happening, because development is not all about local transit. If there is no rapid transit connecting the area to the outside world, than development may not happen.

[whiteford]

riding Calgary's Ctrain is a very pleasant and enjoyable experience. i really have always enjoyed to get around Calgary by the Ctrain and i always have. go figure? its quick, reliable and very pleasant to ride. i think this is why it is such a big success. I cant wait to try out the new skytrain when the line opens. yee-haw! thats Calgarian redneck for yay! haha

[Justin10000]

Transit should not be used as tool for development. The first order of transit should be to move people, and provide an alternative to the car.

It's drives me nuts, when I hear a line is successful because it attract developers to the area. I wonder how agencies chose an alignment that prioritized development over attracting riders?

[Okstate]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

They don't attract development for two reasons.

-The development was going to happen anyway as many of these streetcars are built in downtowns which are already growing, such as Portland.

Why then has vast new downtown economic growth followed closely to the opening of streetcar/light rail lines...and not so much in the areas more than 4-5 blocks away from said lines?

[M II A II R II K]

They should probably plan for both at the same time, which would also be the only beneficial public-private partnership to do with transit.

[fflint]

Transit should be in place when people start moving into a new planned area, to attract people who favor transit into the new area, and so a transit culture can take root in new neighborhoods and districts.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Okstate

Why then has vast new downtown economic growth followed closely to the opening of streetcar/light rail lines...and not so much in the areas more than 4-5 blocks away from said lines?

Because those areas would have developed anyway, as they are choice property.
If the streetcar was the reason for those developments, than ridership would be a lot higher than it is.

The very very low ridership on almost all these downtown streetcars, shows that the streetcar really has nothing to do with development.

[Okstate]

Of course they would have developed anyway...but NOT as fast as they have and concentrated as STRONGLY where they have. Are you suggesting it is mere coincidence development is paralleling the streetcar lines simultaneously? Why are more streetcar lines planned & currently under construction in Portland...because of the very very low ridership!? I ride the streetcar twice a day FIVE days a week & it fills to the brim every single time.

[ardecila]

I don't understand why people have a hard time grasping the relationship between streetcar lines and development. Kenosha, Savannah, Memphis, and Dallas all built systems that are essentially urban theme park rides. They use vintage cars to give an old-timey effect, but they have little independent utility. They don't connect residents to jobs, so why do they exist? Why was public money spent on a theme park ride?

New Orleans seems to be the only city that successfully uses vintage streetcars to provide real transit service, although here there's an established tradition that was never interrupted completely by bustitution.

Cities also have to commit to the land use changes around the streetcar lines. Upzone the areas and make the zoning more permissive, and silence the local residents who protest. Cities can't just build a streetcar expecting development when they've already placed tons of roadblocks in the way of potential developers. Streetcars worked before because we as a society tolerated much higher densities in our cities, and a mixture of uses in each neighborhood, from factories to bars to apartments. They won't work again until we can agree that the density and mixture need to return.