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.
I feel like most cities build the light rails, because they don't want to spend the money to invest in the elevated heavy rail. There are also isn't a market for them. People don't want to ride on them, unless it's a big urban center like New York City. People who live in suburbs, aren't gonna be using them to commute, since they have cars, so heavy rail systems rely on people living in apartment complexes or in communities that are close together and built around transit.
What's wrong with light rail, though? Do you just like the look of heavy rail? I like the look of the heavy rails too. It just seems cooler, but I think they're just more expensive and they don't look very good. Most communities don't want them because NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
Suburbs are not generally served by elevated rapid transit. The chief exceptions being PATCO, BART and Washington Metro. Some by light rail, but generally commuter rail works best for them, assuming Center City is a regional employment center.
I prefer elevated rail to light rail. Another problem with the latter is stops are too close together, which slows it down. Elevated systems that's not practical; stops have to be at least 1 km apart. Theoretically light rail could be built with longer spacing but in fact every developer and resident along the line wants a stop next door.
I prefer elevated rail to light rail. Another problem with the latter is stops are too close together, which slows it down. Elevated systems that's not practical; stops have to be at least 1 km apart. Theoretically light rail could be built with longer spacing but in fact every developer and resident along the line wants a stop next door.
They don't. Some elevated rail has really short stop spacing; most Brooklyn elevateds for example. Probably lower than most light rail. Shortest I've found is 1/4 mile; plenty around 0.4 miles or slightly less.
Because trains are heavy ...and heavy trains are even heavier.
Heavy things are best kept on the ground.
I don't think Boston's, NYC borough El's and Chicago's L's (just I guess Chi wanted to be a bit different). Had WEIGHT of trains as a issue whatsoever. Heck they are on Iron Trellises that could support a highway probably? A 100+ years old even. No one is going to put a full size diesel Locomotive weight train on one their lines. LOL
The issue is they can't do WIDER Trains as DC and SF. The platforms, close tracking systems and subway portions. Could not handle them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Highways are an interesting notion
I think one challenge is many times in the ROW doesn't always well connect to residential or job centers, while close they can be a little separated, though obviously can flow in and out of the highway ROW to better connect
I often wonder why medians were not better used and in some ways might promote more rail or PT usage having to sit in traffic day after day watching trains roll by
Yes. Even when some high-speed line might be looked into. Why not use even a interstate highway median even? But definitely in big cities check into using middles of expressways. Especially as they are rebuilt and add Park n Drive stations too. Cost can be as low or lower then Tram/Trolleys? I would think and some platforms need not be extravagant ether. Just open to sheltered parts?
I feel like most cities build the light rails, because they don't want to spend the money to invest in the elevated heavy rail. There are also isn't a market for them. People don't want to ride on them, unless it's a big urban center like New York City. People who live in suburbs, aren't gonna be using them to commute, since they have cars, so heavy rail systems rely on people living in apartment complexes or in communities that are close together and built around transit.
What's wrong with light rail, though? Do you just like the look of heavy rail? I like the look of the heavy rails too. It just seems cooler, but I think they're just more expensive and they don't look very good. Most communities don't want them because NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
Heavy rail is just much more efficient. The terms heavy and light refer to the capacity to handle "heavy" volumes of traffic or "light" ones. Places like NYC and Chicago and other big cities around the world with a heavier passenger volume need heavy rail systems. If you took out NYC's subway and replaced it with light rail the city would not be able to function because light rail wouldn't be able to satisfy the demand of a city and passenger volume that size. Light rail is for smaller cities or less transit-oriented cities like LA.
Light rail: lower passenger capacity, slower, not always grade separated (often run in traffic with cars), not considered rapid transit, usually bigger in smaller cities and have shorter lengths.
Heavy rail: higher passenger capacity, much faster, always completely grade separated, rapid transit, present in larger cities, longer distances
Miami's heavy rail is elevated for two reasons: 1) protection of system from flooding due to hurricanes and 2) water tables are too high and going underground is pretty much impossible. It recently (the last few years) expanded to MIA International.
Miami's central city metro mover is also elevated and the two interconnect at the government center downtown.
I'm just surprised. Surprised US cities don't do more NEW Elevated systems?
While yes, an elevated line is cheaper than a subway, it could also be considered unsightly and noisy. I've taken the Market–Frankford Line in Philly a few times and while they have renovated it recently, it does stick out like a sore thumb as it barrels above Market St.
I can't imagine people that live on that street, especially for the ones on the 2nd and 3rd floors that look out their window and are eye level with the track and with the noise from the line it's probably not an amazing/wonderful place to live.
I feel like most cities build the light rails, because they don't want to spend the money to invest in the elevated heavy rail. There are also isn't a market for them. People don't want to ride on them, unless it's a big urban center like New York City. People who live in suburbs, aren't gonna be using them to commute, since they have cars, so heavy rail systems rely on people living in apartment complexes or in communities that are close together and built around transit.
What's wrong with light rail, though? Do you just like the look of heavy rail? I like the look of the heavy rails too. It just seems cooler, but I think they're just more expensive and they don't look very good. Most communities don't want them because NIMBY (Not In My BackYard)
There are still some markets with population densities that could support heavy rail. Here in Philly, several extensions would do wonders for the mobility of the city. If the Roosevelt Boulevard Subway/Elevated was built out to Southampton Road, the Market-Frankford Line extended to Rhawn Street via Frankford Avenue, the Broad Street Line extended north/northwest to Cheltenham Avenue via Ogontz/Stenton Avenues along with being extended south towards the Navy Yard, and PATCO extended to University City via Walnut Street, the city would benefit enormously.
Philadelphia may be the city that needs new heavy rail lines and extensions the most due to our population densities throughout the city.
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.
