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.
Maryland (which isn't a city and already has Light Rail). The Purple Line in the densely populated DC Suburbs (Bethesda-Silver Spring-College Park-New Carrollton) and the Red Line in Baltimore. Plus there's plans for another Light Rail system (the Corridor Cities Transitway) in the DC suburbs a little further away from DC, and maybe yet another one to the Southern portion of the state and another one in Baltimore (the Green Line). Of course these projects are widely supported by politicians and residents alike thanks to the supermajorities held by Democrats in this state. The only question is whether the Feds will give us funding or not (which they more than likely will).
Both the Purple and Red Lines are now in the Final EIS preperations which should take another year or so and the CCT Light Rail is being planned as I right this. This state is so far ahead in terms of Mass Transit than nearly every other state (except for maybe New Jersey or California) that the high taxes almost seem worth it .
As for heavy rail, I don't think that's on the table for any city in this country, other than expansions to existing systems. Light Rail is an easier sell, since it's much cheaper, albeit slower than heavy rail.
When most people say heavy rail they mean rail with the third rail and RTA in Cleveland. But commuter rail is different they normally (excluding Chicago) use regular rail and diesel trains.
I also agree that most likely no new growing city would build Heavy Rail but cities with it will build more HR lines and LR lines
When most people say heavy rail they mean rail with the third rail and RTA in Cleveland. But commuter rail is different they normally (excluding Chicago) use regular rail and diesel trains.
I also agree that most likely no new growing city would build Heavy Rail but cities with it will build more HR lines and LR lines
Heavy rail refers to commuter/regional, intercity and rapid transit types of systems. The power source has nothing to do with the distinction, rather the term "light rail" comes from that type of system's lighter capacity vs. the other two types of rail systems. There are examples of commuter and intercity rail systems which are powered by overhead catenary and some by diesel, there are light rail systems powered by overhead catenary and some by diesel. There are rapid transit systems powered by catenary or third rail.
I'm in total agreement with you, though. If we're talking rapid transit, VERY unlikely that new systems would be developed in cities that don't currently have them. One or two this century could happen. If we're talking commuter/regional rail, cities which can seize opportunities to initiate service on an un- or under-utilized freight rail line could do so fairly easily.
Do you guys think any city that doesn't already have heavy rail will be constructing it anytime this century?
To put it simply, no. The only new heavy rail lines you'll be seeing are additions to existing systems, such as the new lines currently in construction in Washington DC and New York. Light Rail and Commuter Rail are the new option for cities with no existing rail systems since they're much cheaper and therefore a much easier sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius
Heavy rail refers to commuter/regional, intercity and rapid transit types of systems. The power source has nothing to do with the distinction, rather the term "light rail" comes from that type of system's lighter capacity vs. the other two types of rail systems. There are examples of commuter and intercity rail systems which are powered by overhead catenary and some by diesel, there are light rail systems powered by overhead catenary and some by diesel. There are rapid transit systems powered by catenary or third rail.
Actually heavy rail=rapid transit. The distinction between heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and intercity rail is mostly based on capacity as you said, the types of equipment used, the length of the lines, and the frequency of the stops. You're also right about any type being either electric or diesel powered.
Light Rail typically uses the shortest lines, is pretty slow, runs on shared right of way in most cases (i.e. runs on roads shared with cars), and has the most frequent stops which aren't always "stations" (almost bus like in downtown areas). Examples in New Jersey would include the electric Newark and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail systems, as well as the diesel River Line.
Heavy Rail (also rapid transit or subway) is faster than light rail, usually completely grade seperated (either in tunnels, elevated, or on grade-level tracks away from public right-of-way), and has slightly less frequent stops downtown than light rail (even more so outside of downtown). Examples would be the PATH, NYCT Subway, and PATCO.
Commuter Rail (also regional rail) is faster than light and heavy rail, has much longer lines, may serve a few states, has much less frequent stops than heavy rail, and in some cases shares tracks with freight trains. Examples: NJ Transit and Metro-North.
Intercity Rail is long distance rail and is theoretically the fastest type of rail transit. Routes usually cross multiple states and cities and in this country Amtrak is the only operator of this type of service. The all-electric Washington-New York-Boston Northeast Corridor has trains operating between 125mph-150mph, but this isn't the norm as most long distance routes in the South and West operate on freight lines and are diesel powered which restricts their speed.
Heavy rail isn't interchangeable with rapid transit or subway. A lot of these terms are beginning to become more arbitrary nomenclature. With more American cities turning to light rail systems, the term 'rapid transit' is broadening in its definition depending on the context. There are some cities where light rail could be considered rapid transit.
Anyway.
The theory that cities without rail now are unlikely to implement doesn't hold very true for many cities. Honolulu is looking at an elevated LR line very soon, and even Detroit may get its first true rapid transit line within a few years. There are quite a few cities that have yet to get rail, though. Las Vegas, Nashville, Milwaukee, Kansas City, San Antonio, Cincinnati, Memphis, Columbus are all other examples of cities that don't have rapid transit.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backstrom
The theory that cities without rail now are unlikely to implement doesn't hold very true for many cities. Honolulu is looking at an elevated LR line very soon, and even Detroit may get its first true rapid transit line within a few years. There are quite a few cities that have yet to get rail, though. Las Vegas, Nashville, Milwaukee, Kansas City, San Antonio, Cincinnati, Memphis, Columbus are all other examples of cities that don't have rapid transit.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that cities that don't have rail won't get it. It's just that no city for the foreseeable future will build a subway system.
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.
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.
.
