Why Doesn't Chicago Have Light Rail? (Phoenix, Campus: appointed, 2015, power lines)

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

I can't speak for the OP, but you guys are missing the point that trolleys and streetcars are "cooler" than buses. No hipster worth his/her salt would be caught dead riding some random stinking bus (which is why they crowd around El stations). But trolleys are retro and cool.

Think about that SF trolley line that takes old trolleys from across the country, gets them working, and uses them. Of course financially that doesn't make sense, but sometimes you have to do things just because. It gets people excited about things, it's unique, and makes your town a better place.

/s

The SF cablecars exist mostly as tourist traps. The vast majority of people are riding muni or bart.

[tjasse]

Originally Posted by via chicago

The SF cablecars exist mostly as tourist traps. The vast majority of people are riding muni or bart.

I think he was referring to F-Market. It's a vintage streetcar that is part of the regular MUNI system.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by via chicago

The SF cablecars exist mostly as tourist traps. The vast majority of people are riding muni or bart.

Yes and no. The Powell-Mason and Powell-Hyde cable car lines are mostly for tourists. The California St. cable car line, not so much. It carries a lot of commuters from Knob Hill to the Financial District.

Anyway, he wasn't talking about the cable cars. He was talking about the F streetcar line. Market & Wharves, which is about 50% tourists, 50% commuters. On Markets St. it's generally mostly SF commuters from the Castro District, at Fisherman's Wharf, it's mostly tourists.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by mp775

The 'L' is somewhere between light rail and heavy rail. Some of the 6000 series cars that ran from 1950 to 1992 were built from components salvaged from CTA's PCC streetcars.

No, it's heavy rail.

Light Rail has nothing to do with the cars, it has to do with the tracks. Light rail is basically a modern streetcar or tram, not an entirely separated rail line that requires dedicated stations. The L requires both, and is most definitely heavy rail.

You might consider something like Boston's Green lines as being a bit of a mix, since they run as dedicated subways close to downtown, and then run as streetcars further out.

[frostopsy]

Originally Posted by the_curious_urbanist

If you take a look at the 6 most urban cities in the U.S. 5 of them have light rail and/or streetcars along with metro rail (DC just put up a new streetcar line and constructing more) but Chicago doesn't have any. It just goes from the El and Metra and then buses after that. I wonder why Chicago isn't building or planning light rail and/or streetcar to fill transit gaps not served by the El or Metra.

You should check the news. DC's street car project has been a monumental failure on every level. Construction interfered with traffic and businesses for years, they lost parking spaces, went over budget (100m or more), the line only goes down one street at the moment, it's hit parked cars and gotten in traffic accidents, and pretty much hasn't had one good thing happen for it. There's a new mayor that just got elected and there's a chance the project might be scrapped for a bunch of reasons.

My opinion, is a light rail works fine when I've been to cities like Seattle and Phoenix for example, but there has to be a plan in place. Chicago already has the CTA which loses money every year as it is, and Rahm wants to pump up the use of bikes. Chicago is also hella broke, I don't see the funds coming up for this project which would be nothing more than a glamour project in the long run.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by Attrill

No, it's heavy rail.

Light Rail has nothing to do with the cars, it has to do with the tracks. Light rail is basically a modern streetcar or tram, not an entirely separated rail line that requires dedicated stations. The L requires both, and is most definitely heavy rail.

The official APTA definition is "an electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." CTA's 48 foot cars with two doors per side are about as small as it gets for heavy rail, and they do have that all-electric PCC heritage. It makes them versatile. Most of the system is unequivocally heavy rail, but the portions that are at grade or run 2-4 car trains have more of a light rail feel. If the system were "heavier," those branches would most likely be their own light rail feeder lines.

You might consider something like Boston's Green lines as being a bit of a mix, since they run as dedicated subways close to downtown, and then run as streetcars further out.

The Green Line is light rail, period. Its subway tunnels were built for streetcars.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by frostopsy

it's hit parked cars and gotten in traffic accidents

Well, I guess those motormen need to learn how to steer!

[mp775]

Originally Posted by tjasse

I think he was referring to F-Market. It's a vintage streetcar that is part of the regular MUNI system.

And the E-Embarcadero!!!!

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot

Im glad we don't have street cars. I'm happy with the EL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBPoRwog00

Nah....Chicago needs a monorail! and lightrail!

[chirack]

Light rail is most attractive for cities that lack rapid transit. It's advantage is that it can run in the street with traffic saving the cost of an dedicated right of way along the whole route. Chicago has rapid transit which reduces the need for it.