Could light rail hold up to heavy rail? (metro, suburban, downtown)

[goofy328]

Black Perception: Could light rail hold up to heavy rail?

It would appear that cities either have both light rail and heavy rail (subway), or just light rail. In almost every case (the exception being Los Angeles), heavy rail is used at least twice as much, if not exponentially more, than light rail. Will this ever change or is this because light rail continues to be built through corridors that are not as dense as heavy rail, and also because you have to build around light rail, whereas with heavy rail you can simply build on top of it.

[AJNEOA]

This article is strange. It states the following:

What are the issues related to light rail that prevent the train system from becoming as integral of a part of the transportation infrastructure than heavy rail has in the United States, other than the obvious (density, location of lines)?

It asks a question, calls the answer to the question the "obvious", and then asks for other reasons. I'm pretty sure coverage, location and density are two major indicators. Light rail in Portland, OR is pretty strong because it has great coverage, quality and decent density. However, it can't compare with heavy rail numbers in cities like Chicago, Boston, DC, etc, because these are denser, more urban places with even more support around them (buses, light rail, commuter rail, etc.). Heavy rail better serves dense environments with frequent stops.

There are secondary factors involved such as traffic, pricing, other public transit options, but I think density, location and coverage are key. Also, most metros are currently building light rail, because it's cheaper than heavy rail and because many metros have no rail and lower density. In this instance, it's like light rail is introduced as a baby step to a population that's used to driving their cars way too much. Obviously, we're not going to see explosive ridership right away.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

Obviously, we're not going to see explosive ridership right away.

Often true, but in Charlotte and Norfolk light rail has proven quite popular right away:

Ridership on Norfolk's light rail is exceeding expectations | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

I think mode of transit could be a cannon, so long as it got people where they needed to go and offered some advantages over other forms of transportation.

[AJNEOA]

Hey, Handsup, good to see you in here again!

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Often true, but in Charlotte and Norfolk light rail has proven quite popular right away:

Ridership on Norfolk's light rail is exceeding expectations | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

I think mode of transit could be a cannon, so long as it got people where they needed to go and offered some advantages over other forms of transportation.

This is good to know. It sounds like Charlotte and Norfolk picked a great location (which had the minimum requirement for density) to run a line to where people wanted to go.

It appears to me that this author is looking for a hidden boogyman beyond the obvious. Yet he/she chooses to support their argument that there's a hidden cause by giving an example of an under-used light rail line that runs from Staten Island (aka the most suburban borough of NYC). Staten Island has the lowest density of all the boroughs and far more car ownership than many other boroughs:

Staten Island is the most auto-centric borough in New York City, with only 18.4% of all households being autoless. Citywide, the rate is 55%. http://www.tstc.org/reports/cpsheets..._factsheet.pdf

IMO, this is why ridership is lower. It doesn't have to do with light rail vs. heavy rail. Light rail in Boston acts more as heavy rail, but only because it's a highly dense area. Heavy rail moves people more efficiently in high densities, but light rail can move many people pretty well if it's surrounded by the proper support (density, connecting PT, good ROWs or tunneled, etc.). Light rail sucks if it can't handle the capacity, but that's certainly not the issue the author is claiming.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

Hey, Handsup, good to see you in here again!


This is good to know. It sounds like Charlotte and Norfolk picked a great location (which had the minimum requirement for density) to run a line to where people wanted to go.

It appears to me that this author is looking for a hidden boogyman beyond the obvious. Yet he/she chooses to support their argument that there's a hidden cause by giving an example of an under-used light rail line that runs from Staten Island (aka the most suburban borough of NYC). Staten Island has the lowest density of all the boroughs and far more car ownership than many other boroughs:



IMO, this is why ridership is lower. It doesn't have to do with light rail vs. heavy rail. Light rail in Boston acts more as heavy rail, but only because it's a highly dense area. Heavy rail moves people more efficiently in high densities, but light rail can move many people pretty well if it's surrounded by the proper support (density, connecting PT, good ROWs or tunneled, etc.). Light rail sucks if it can't handle the capacity, but that's certainly not the issue the author is claiming.

I was intrigued by the fact that in Los Angeles light rail carried even more passengers, though the difference was negligible (10,000). Light rail is also built and financed on the idea that transit oriented development will occur in those same areas.

There was an article in the Virginian Pilot that suggests that a company that was located in Virginia Beach, which is on the fence about light rail, relocated and moved to Norfolk, which has one line. The relocation was on the actual light rail line itself, not just a random spot in Norfolk.

I was intrigued by the Staten Island line; I had simply assumed that rail was non-existent in Staten Island. I have heard that Staten Island was experiencing some growth, along with the rest of the city, but am not sure why. If using Staten Island contradicts my argument it was not a good choice. I had thought it would be an interesting way to show that New York has light rail as well as heavy rail.

One more thing about Norfolk, or Hampton Roads in general; one idea about running light rail through Virginia Beach would use a path that was previously used for freight. The city of Virginia Beach has already purchased the right of way and paved over the line. There are a number of rail lines that had previously carried freight that could be used for light rail in the future. I suspect that this is where light rail will be developed initially; where it gets interesting, is when eminent domain has to come into play because they want to run light rail through an area that had not seen any transportation infrastructure at all.

One criticism I had of light rail in Norfolk is that going through downtown the line is not elevated. It seems that it would be safer to elevate it; even at the cost of elevation that would be one more thing not to worry about.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by goofy328

I was intrigued by the fact that in Los Angeles light rail carried even more passengers, though the difference was negligible (10,000). Light rail is also built and financed on the idea that transit oriented development will occur in those same areas.

Heavy rail is also being used in combination with TOD. The Metro in DC is a good example. They're building a line out to Dulles, through Tysons Corner, which is expected to "densify". Heavy rail is just so much more expensive, and once it does get built, it's long overdue and the population is there across its line. DC seems like a modern day exception because of the constant funding.

Originally Posted by goofy328

There was an article in the Virginian Pilot that suggests that a company that was located in Virginia Beach, which is on the fence about light rail, relocated and moved to Norfolk, which has one line. The relocation was on the actual light rail line itself, not just a random spot in Norfolk.

I was intrigued by the Staten Island line; I had simply assumed that rail was non-existent in Staten Island. I have heard that Staten Island was experiencing some growth, along with the rest of the city, but am not sure why. If using Staten Island contradicts my argument it was not a good choice. I had thought it would be an interesting way to show that New York has light rail as well as heavy rail.

There are certainly folks in this forum that know a lot more than me, but my take on this is that all of this is more subjective than it appears on the surface. Heavy rail will have high ridership numbers where density is high and the right areas are connected. If there are numerous lines that connect, then ridership will likely increase. I think the same exists with light rail; where density is high, numerous lines connect, and location is right, ridership will be high. Because light rail isn't as efficient and is often implemented in lower density areas (than HR), it will typically have lower ridership numbers. The exception is Boston's Green Line, but it serves the population like heavy rail and is integrated into the system seemlessly.

I believe that light rail systems can be effective for certain cities, but if you go to a higher density in a larger city, heavy rail is typically a better choice. I think that light rail can work with heavy rail systems effectively, but to "hold up" to it is questionable. IMO, it's all about density, location, built environment, coverage, etc.

[mooguy]

Both can create TOD but I think LRT , over the long term, is more expensive and yields poorer results.
American cities have a great reputation for building large new rapid transit systems but when the ribbons have been cut they provide poor service.
In order for a system to be truly "rapid" it must provide service of at least every 6 minutes on off peak times. If you have to wait 20 minutes for a train it's not rapid nor is it enticing enough to get someone away from their car and onto transit.
Heavy rail is always completely grade separated which means it can be automated while all the recent LRT systems in the US have some form of cross street intersection. All it takes is for one tiny stretch not to be totally grade separated to inhibit automation.
The biggest cost in any transit system is labour and automation is a great way to keep those costs down. Vancouver SkyTrain lines are all automated and run every 3 minutes or better all day.......living next to a SkyTrain station is like having a taxi at your door. Thing is it costs relatively little to actually run the trains at that frequency.
LRT itself can be automated but I don't know of any LRT system that has totally grade separation.
Seattle's LINK and Vancouver's Canada Line opened within a year of each other but the Canada Line has 4x the ridership, 3x the frequency, and yet costs less to run. Due to POP , automation can save a small fortune and allows for cheap ultra high frequency service.

[wordlife]

Not at all.

The only place that i've seen light rail packed just as much as heavy rail has been in western europe.

in the states we have too many systems being built or planned with no separate row which is a big mistake in the long run. Not only does this create more headway around busy intersections but there's also the potential for bottle necking as well (because more than likely the frequency will be 15 - 20 minutes).

the sad thing is that the most viable heavy rail systems in the country are located all within the northeast (with the exception of Chicago).

I've rode the trains in LA, I think they have a good thing going for them but the system is still in its infancy, you can't compare it to the 100+ year old systems in NY, Boston and Chicago.

With older cities heavy rail expansion is quite expensive to build but there are alternatives. For instance certain commuter rail lines can be upgraded to a heavy rail infrastructure but I doubt this will happy any time soon as the FRA is *** backwards about bringing our rail systems out of antiquity. I think a good example would be the Chesnut Hill R lines in Philly, there's no reason why those shouldn't be upped to heavy rail to add to the system.

When heavy rail can't be built, or is too expensive to built I would suggest rebuilding a few of the trolley lines that used to feed into heavy rail lines at one time.

one thing that kinda irks me is how certain space is used by metro stations (outside of NYC), you'll find parking lots and very underutilized spaces where there should be some development to fuel the ridership and density around the station. Take for example the orange line in Chicago, why are there parking lots next to certain stations? ridiculous. I can say the same for some of the stations on the Rapid in Cleveland. If they want to see downtowns and city centers truly revitalized (and enjoyed) by all socioeconomic groups then then you need to pay attention to how you develop and build around your transit lines whether they be heavy rail, LRT...or god forbid BRT.

[KC6ZLV]

I haven't taken the time to look at the patterns in the eastern part of the country, but here in California heavy rail is used between cities (Caltrain from SF to Gilroy, and ACE from Stockton to San Jose) and they are usually decommissioned freight corridors. Light rail is usually left to municipality, such as MUNI in San Francisco, or a county system, such as RT in Sacramento County or VTA in Santa Clara County. There are exceptions, but that is the general pattern out here. As far as light rail holding up to heavy rail, what do you mean by that? For commuter purposes I don't think passengers care, although I'm sure a lot of them see the different role they play. Light rail is usually used in a much more restricted area due to the need for electric power. Whereas, heavy rail can run between cities without the concern of electrical power.

I guess I could also state that heavy rail serves the role of moving people between metro areas. Light rail usually moves people within a county or city. The roles are different.

As far as results go, light rail does fairly well nationwide. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that nobody uses light rail.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Heavy rail is obviously ideal but its initial capital cost makes the public choke on their dinner. However its operating cost is significantly lower than light rail. Pay less now/pay more later, or reverse? I think think congestion has to reach a truly ridiculous level before many in our short-sighted populace considers big $$ heavy rail to be a wise investment. Unfortunately by the time they decide they want it they will have to wait 20 years to get it!