U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: More impressive Transit Expansion?
Sound Transit 3 (Seattle) 13 35.14%
Measure M (Los Angeles) 24 64.86%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2018, 08:17 PM
 
488 posts, read 191,852 times
Reputation: 393

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
I can't believe people still write off/underestimate L.A.'s metro rail clout. They have an amazing system right now. The only serious gap is the Sepulveda Pass (I took an Uber Express Pool from SaMO to Sherman Oaks last week up the 405-12 bucks pretty fast ride). I still don't think Ventura Boulevard has the density for rail. The map the OP posted indicates a heavy rail line up Sepulveda. If that happens then L.A. is right back in their 1920's heyday as a transit leader.

Seattle is approaching density and population that could warrant heavy rail, but they have no plans for this asfaik.
I’m sure I sound like a broken record - light vs heavy rail does matter to some extent, but people are too fixated on that distinction, instead of focusing on grade-separation (i.e. is it street running or underground/elevated), capacity, speed and reliability. Seattle’s system is closer to heavy rail systems in those attributes than standard surface running light rail.

Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 05-18-2018 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2018, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,543 posts, read 3,316,240 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
I’m sure I sound like a broken record - light vs heavy rail does matter to some extent, but people are too fixated on that distinction, instead of focusing on grade-separation (i.e. is it street running or underground/elevated), capacity, speed and reliability. Seattle’s system is closer to heavy rail systems in those attributes than standard surface running light rail.
I haven’t ridden Link, but I don’t think that it’s more like heavy rail than LA’s light rail lines which are mostly or for the green line entirely grade separated, with 6 minute peak frequencies, 3-car 260 ft long trains with turnstile entry and high platforms. That said, LA’s heavy rail can handle substantially more capacity than our light rail. It’s entirely grade separated, capable of 5 minute peak frequency (2.5 min per line on the shared trunk), with wider 6-car 300 ft long trains.

Our light rail maxes out somewhere around 4,000 people per mile while our heavy rail easily handles 10,000 people per mile even at 8 minute frequencies. It would probably max out at 15-20,000 per mile which is something Metro is actually worried about.

Link sounds a lot like what we have in LA, but nicer from what I hear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 12:51 PM
 
488 posts, read 191,852 times
Reputation: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
I haven’t ridden Link, but I don’t think that it’s more like heavy rail than LA’s light rail lines which are mostly or for the green line entirely grade separated, with 6 minute peak frequencies, 3-car 260 ft long trains with turnstile entry and high platforms. That said, LA’s heavy rail can handle substantially more capacity than our light rail. It’s entirely grade separated, capable of 5 minute peak frequency (2.5 min per line on the shared trunk), with wider 6-car 300 ft long trains.

Our light rail maxes out somewhere around 4,000 people per mile while our heavy rail easily handles 10,000 people per mile even at 8 minute frequencies. It would probably max out at 15-20,000 per mile which is something Metro is actually worried about.

Link sounds a lot like what we have in LA, but nicer from what I hear.
Once the build out is complete Seattle’s light rail is going to run 4-car trains at 3-4 minute frequencies. It’s supposed to be able to carry well over 1 million riders per day eventually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,543 posts, read 3,316,240 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
Once the build out is complete Seattle’s light rail is going to run 4-car trains at 3-4 minute frequencies. It’s supposed to be able to carry well over 1 million riders per day eventually.
Then Seattle is building better power infrastructure than LA. And because we do have some street running and because 4 cars won’t fit on a block, we’re limited to 3 cars.

How will Seattle accommodate 4 car trains on street running portions? Are there none?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 12:58 PM
 
3,569 posts, read 2,014,636 times
Reputation: 3293
I believe I've heard that four-car trains at three-minute frequencies will happen in 2023. The east and south routes will be six minutes each, and combine in the north segment (the north extension to Northgate will open in 2021, and east to Redmond is 2023). PS, those are both funded in part by an earlier $17 billion measure (ST2). Edit: our stations are built for 400' trains, starting with the "bus tunnel" stations Downtown that will soon be all-rail.

The initial line is the least grade-separated of all, with several street crossings including a street-median section. The new stuff is grade separated with minor exceptions, like a future extension in Redmond that will end on the street but be grade separated almost all of the way there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,543 posts, read 3,316,240 times
Reputation: 1678
So longer trains and more grade separation (on average) than LA. The frequency sounds about the same. Our trunk through downtown will also have two lines at 6 min frequencies combining for 3 min frequencies at 4 underground stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 01:30 PM
 
488 posts, read 191,852 times
Reputation: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
So longer trains and more grade separation (on average) than LA. The frequency sounds about the same. Our trunk through downtown will also have two lines at 6 min frequencies combining for 3 min frequencies at 4 underground stations.
There is certainly nothing like the Expo line in Seattle that runs along the surface downtown. They’re going to have two separate tunnels under the urban core by the time the buildout is complete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,543 posts, read 3,316,240 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman View Post
There is certainly nothing like the Expo line in Seattle that runs along the surface downtown. They’re going to have two separate tunnels under the urban core by the time the buildout is complete.
That would make sense because your light rail is essentially your subway while LA has heavy rail downtown as well.

I really have to get to Seattle in a few years to compare. I suspect that LA’s light rail system will be bigger but Seattle’s will be more useful and modern. Since that is the ultimate objective that would mean that Seattle will be “better” although both will be transformative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 01:42 PM
 
3,569 posts, read 2,014,636 times
Reputation: 3293
Seattle also has a century-old tunnel that handles commuter rail, Amtrak, and freight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2018, 02:09 PM
 
488 posts, read 191,852 times
Reputation: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
That would make sense because your light rail is essentially your subway while LA has heavy rail downtown as well.

I really have to get to Seattle in a few years to compare. I suspect that LA’s light rail system will be bigger but Seattle’s will be more useful and modern. Since that is the ultimate objective that would mean that Seattle will be “better” although both will be transformative.
It’s true - it really makes no sense to functionally separate LA’s light and heavy rail. They are both part of the same integrated system. I’m just saying Seattle’s system is really more like a light metro than typical light rail, and shares many traits with heavy rail.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medi...ty_rail_system
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top