U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2017, 11:28 AM
 
2,163 posts, read 1,463,127 times
Reputation: 2167

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheel84 View Post
I think Pittsburgh would've been a good candidate connecting some dense neighborhoods across the river to downtown, the Oakland area and dense neighborhoods beyond there.
I'm assuming you mean across the Allegheny river, not the Monongahela. The T in Pittsburgh does now tunnel under the Allegheny to the North side (since 2012), and it functions largely like a heavy rail system there and in downtown (it is a subway). But the mistake they made was not extending it beyond the stadium and casino area to the core neighborhoods on the North side. It does also go across the Monogahela to some dense neighborhoods to the south, but in those areas it is mostly at street grade like typical light rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2017, 01:40 PM
 
1,041 posts, read 522,212 times
Reputation: 1892
Quote:
Originally Posted by oobanks View Post
What are some Cities that have that urban makeup for a Subway system/HRT but instead opted or got suck with Light rail transit. I can think of a few of these but my number 1 would be Houston, TX. For a city its size they should have gone the HRT route..
Amen. I don't think the soil/elevation is great in Houston for a subway though. They had an elevated system on the books in the 60s but I believe it was voted down...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2017, 04:20 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,142 posts, read 23,662,647 times
Reputation: 11622
Seattle and the Twin Cities are two very notable cases of having historically been optioned the construction of a heavy rail transit network, in the same era and sort of build that Atlanta, DC, and the Bay Area (BART) have now, but turned it down. These are also two cities right now with light rail systems that probably would have made great use of a heavy rail system.

Here’s Seattle’s failed plan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Thrust

Seattle probably would have made far better use of their system than Atlanta does now, but oh well. It’s nice that Atlanta has that system to build off of though and Atlanta is going to infill strongly in the near future.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-31-2017 at 04:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2017, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,060,365 times
Reputation: 9577
Quote:
Originally Posted by oobanks View Post
What are some Cities that have that urban makeup for a Subway system/HRT but instead opted or got suck with Light rail transit. I can think of a few of these but my number 1 would be Houston, TX. For a city its size they should have gone the HRT route..
Who is going to pay for that HRT?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2017, 12:31 PM
 
61 posts, read 45,215 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Seattle and the Twin Cities are two very notable cases of having historically been optioned the construction of a heavy rail transit network, in the same era and sort of build that Atlanta, DC, and the Bay Area (BART) have now, but turned it down. These are also two cities right now with light rail systems that probably would have made great use of a heavy rail system.

Here’s Seattle’s failed plan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Thrust

Seattle probably would have made far better use of their system than Atlanta does now, but oh well. It’s nice that Atlanta has that system to build off of though and Atlanta is going to infill strongly in the near future.
I'm not sure why people are so fixated on the light- or heavy-rail technology aspect. What matters more is grade separation, speed and capacity. I think people way overstate the limitations of light rail. Seattle's current system is closer to DC's than it is to Minneapolis in all three of the categories I just mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2017, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,122 posts, read 1,308,027 times
Reputation: 1826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric324 View Post
Have you ridden the light rail from Westlake to UW? It's an 8 minute subway ride (with an additional stop in Capitol Hill) compared to a 45-minute drive with moderate traffic. That's very fast by any standard.

In terms of capacity the current system will be able to run 4-car trains at 2 minute headways, allowing for 1M+ daily ridership, so I don't think it's an issue for a mid-sized city like Seattle. In terms of speed, aside from one section in the Rainier Valley - which will be the only section of its kind in the entire 120 mile built out system - it can go up to 60 miles per hour through congested urban areas. The ride from Downtown to Northgate or Downtown to Ballard will be 15 minutes, which is crazy. With a quick transfer, someone could get from Ballard to Capitol Hill or West Seattle in 20 minutes, which is much faster than driving. Aside from that one portion of the starter line that I mentioned, Link will be far more comparable in terms of speed to a rapid transit system.
No but I took it between the airport and Somewhere Downtown ó Pioneer Square IIRC. But have you ridden on heavy rail rapid transit systems like in New York or Chicago? They are not the same. I think itís great what Seattle is doing and I think the fact that they are trying to make it resemble rapid transit as much as possible makes it the perfect candidate for this thread. I know that itís insanely expensive and timely to build rapid transit subways these days so this does seem like the most reasonable and cost + time effective method for a city of Seattleís size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric324 View Post
I'm not sure why people are so fixated on the light- or heavy-rail technology aspect.
Well, itís literally the thread topic and title.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2017, 08:47 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,142 posts, read 23,662,647 times
Reputation: 11622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric324 View Post
I'm not sure why people are so fixated on the light- or heavy-rail technology aspect. What matters more is grade separation, speed and capacity. I think people way overstate the limitations of light rail. Seattle's current system is closer to DC's than it is to Minneapolis in all three of the categories I just mentioned.
I think people usually use heavy rail as simply a shorthand for systems that are grade separated and have greater speed and capacity with capacity being a direct distinguishing characteristic within most definitions. Light rail in the US also generally comes with segments that are not grade separated which means that speed is generally much reduced in parts and I'm certain that there were parts that were not grade-separate when I rode it. Certainly, there are differences in quality even within and between those same categories, but these differences generally apply in the US.

I agree though, a true fully right-of-way separated light rail line without mixing with any traffic or traffic signals runs pretty much the same way with just lower max capacity such as the light rail systems in Taipei or Vancouver. Seattle's is almost that except for the parts it's not, even if it's a small part.

Regardless, Seattle missed out on a better system at a far earlier time is the point I was pointing out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 02:32 PM
 
61 posts, read 45,215 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
No but I took it between the airport and Somewhere Downtown — Pioneer Square IIRC. But have you ridden on heavy rail rapid transit systems like in New York or Chicago? They are not the same. I think it’s great what Seattle is doing and I think the fact that they are trying to make it resemble rapid transit as much as possible makes it the perfect candidate for this thread. I know that it’s insanely expensive and timely to build rapid transit subways these days so this does seem like the most reasonable and cost + time effective method for a city of Seattle’s size.



Well, it’s literally the thread topic and title.
I've ridden subways in a ton of major cities, including NYC and Chicago. I'm just saying the OP was incorrectly conflating HRT and subways.

The segment you rode is the one small portion of the system that will have significant at-grade (I believe about a third of that segment - along MLK - is at grade), because it was the starter line and they were strapped for cash. Things have completely changed since then. That is a drop in the bucket in the larger planned 120-mile network, which will primarily be grade-separated and fast (and will be closer to DC than Denver in terms of feel). The segment between Westlake and UW is much more representative of what most of the system will be like. (There is even talk of eventually elevating or burying the MLK portion although that would be a long ways away).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 02:34 PM
 
61 posts, read 45,215 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think people usually use heavy rail as simply a shorthand for systems that are grade separated and have greater speed and capacity with capacity being a direct distinguishing characteristic within most definitions. Light rail in the US also generally comes with segments that are not grade separated which means that speed is generally much reduced in parts and I'm certain that there were parts that were not grade-separate when I rode it. Certainly, there are differences in quality even within and between those same categories, but these differences generally apply in the US.

I agree though, a true fully right-of-way separated light rail line without mixing with any traffic or traffic signals runs pretty much the same way with just lower max capacity such as the light rail systems in Taipei or Vancouver. Seattle's is almost that except for the parts it's not, even if it's a small part.

Regardless, Seattle missed out on a better system at a far earlier time is the point I was pointing out.
Agreed. But what they're building now still resembles rapid transit more than traditional at-grade light rail overall. Seattle just passed a $54 Billion measure for light rail expansion (On top of two previous measures). Those are typical HRT-level costs. If it was at-grade it would have been less than 1/4 of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2017, 03:03 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,417,065 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think people usually use heavy rail as simply a shorthand for systems that are grade separated and have greater speed and capacity with capacity being a direct distinguishing characteristic within most definitions. Light rail in the US also generally comes with segments that are not grade separated which means that speed is generally much reduced in parts and I'm certain that there were parts that were not grade-separate when I rode it. Certainly, there are differences in quality even within and between those same categories, but these differences generally apply in the US.

I agree though, a true fully right-of-way separated light rail line without mixing with any traffic or traffic signals runs pretty much the same way with just lower max capacity such as the light rail systems in Taipei or Vancouver. Seattle's is almost that except for the parts it's not, even if it's a small part.

Regardless, Seattle missed out on a better system at a far earlier time is the point I was pointing out.
Vancouver's system isn't light rail. The system is driverless and powered by the third rail. Neither is Taipei's.

Last edited by sav858; 11-02-2017 at 03:17 PM..
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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