Why Doesn't Chicago Have Light Rail? (Paris, Manhattan: to rent, buy, design)

[compactspace]

The city would be far better served by building L lines all the way up and down Halsted, Ashland or Western. Preferably all three.

[Urban Peasant]

Light rail best serves smaller cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, etc.. Chicago is too big and populated to properly handle light rail. Boston's Green Line is light rail and ridiculously slow and crowded because two cars max. are trying to serve the role of six cars and then running alongside street traffic. Same goes with Philly's subway-surface lines all 5 of which feed into a congested subway tunnel. You don't want that for Windy City do you? Heavy rail can already get crowded.

[NOLA101]

Chicago doesn't have light rail because it doesn't really need it. The L and the buses are fine.

But it has nothing to do with "best serving smaller cities". NYC, Mexico City, Paris, LA and many huge cities have light rail. Light rail lines often have greater capacity than heavy rail lines, if grade-separated. Many are even subways.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Chicago doesn't have light rail because it doesn't really need it. The L and the buses are fine.

But it has nothing to do with "best serving smaller cities". NYC, Mexico City, Paris, LA and many huge cities have light rail. Light rail lines often have greater capacity than heavy rail lines, if grade-separated. Many are even subways.

Where in NYC is there a light rail? The closest is the Newark City Subway and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail across the way in NJ. Boston's Green Line is a subway and the D Branch is grade separated but it is overcapacity. I don't know about Paris but London has the Docklands route but it only feeds into what is otherwise a mostly heavy rail system. LA and San Francisco do have extensive light rail systems in addition to heavy rail but these systems too suffer from overcapacity.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee announces expansion of new Muni light rail fleet | abc7news.com

The only instance I can think that a city like Chicago can benefit from light rail is a shorter corridor away from the Loop that can either feed into a heavy rail line to get into town or is entirely separate and intended to bring economic activity to the corridor itself. To have a light rail line run all the way from one corner of the city into the Loop, forget it.

[pvande55]

Mainly what is lacking in Chicago is any good North-South transit west of the loop to handle crosstown demand. Possibly the Ashland BRT would be a start, if it is implemented. CTA Ashland BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

Where in NYC is there a light rail? The closest is the Newark City Subway and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail across the way in NJ.

You realize that's NYC, right? Those light rail lines are as close to Midtown Manhattan as Lakeview is to the Loop. Are you arguing the Belmont L station isn't really Chicago?

In fact the HBLR is planned to eventually reach NYC, via Staten Island. But that segment will actually be much further from Manhattan than the current sections just across the river.

Those are heavy capacity rail lines that run underground for long sections, with underground stations, long platforms, and multiple car trains.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

Boston's Green Line is a subway and the D Branch is grade separated but it is overcapacity. I don't know about Paris but London has the Docklands route but it only feeds into what is otherwise a mostly heavy rail system. LA and San Francisco do have extensive light rail systems in addition to heavy rail but these systems too suffer from overcapacity.

I don't know what any of this means. The Green Line is light rail. Paris has light rail. London has light rail. Light rail can (and often does) have heavier ridership than heavy rail. The examples you give have nothing to do with the conversation, and you're just making up "overcapacity" rules. There is nothing preventing high capacity light rail.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

You realize that's NYC, right? Those light rail lines are as close to Midtown Manhattan as Lakeview is to the Loop. Are you arguing the Belmont L station isn't really Chicago?

In fact the HBLR is planned to eventually reach NYC, via Staten Island. But that segment will actually be much further from Manhattan than the current sections just across the river.

Those are heavy capacity rail lines that run underground for long sections, with underground stations, long platforms, and multiple car trains.

I don't know what any of this means. The Green Line is light rail. Paris has light rail. London has light rail. Light rail can (and often does) have heavier ridership than heavy rail. The examples you give have nothing to do with the conversation, and you're just making up "overcapacity" rules. There is nothing preventing high capacity light rail.

No, Newark and Jersey City are not NYC. You're lucky this is the Chicago Forum because you'd likely put some noses out of joint by quoting the same thing in the New York forums. Jersey City may be "just across" the Hudson River from NYC but the fact that it is in another state makes it all the more harder to plan a new transportation link between the two. The HBLR extension into Staten Island is only a proposed idea; it has not taken off and lately seems to have come off the books entirely (and I wonder why ).

Port Authority urged to fund Staten Island LRT | Railway Age

But if you didn't get my point, what I am trying to tell you is Chicago best not follow the example of Boston, LA, or any other Alpha city that runs light rail because you will face overwhelming crowd issues (as if heavy rail already doesn't). If you want a new rail line, make it heavy rail like the rest of the L. Even NYC Mayor de Blasio is calling for a new heavy rail line along Utica Ave. in Brooklyn, not light rail. What do you mean by high capacity light rail? You're trying to tell me that a 1-2 car light rail set can fit the same crush capacity as a 6-8 car heavy rail set?

[tjasse]

There's already light rail in NA that has high capacity: Boston, SF, and Calgary. Light rail would be fine for cross routes in Chicago. I don't see why it would face 'overwhelming crowd issues' in Chicago or what that even means. What makes Chicago special so that light rail would not be a useful mode of transit? Seems like it works fine elsewhere.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by tjasse

There's already light rail in NA that has high capacity: Boston, SF, and Calgary.

Have you ever ridden Boston's Green Line, especially during rush hours? Do you really think no Bostonian would ever wish for the Green Line to magically turn into heavy rail that can hold six car trains and run at the same frequency? Do you want to disagree with the SF mayor in the article below when he says that Muni is way overcapacity?

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee announces expansion of new Muni light rail fleet | abc7news.com

Granted had these systems been heavy rail, they could still have suffered from overcapacity but then you've just answered your own question.

Heavy rail > [greater than] light rail > bus when it comes to handling passenger capacity.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

No, Newark and Jersey City are not NYC.

OK, so just so we're clear, according to you, Chicago doesn't have a subway system or commuter rail system, correct?

Because all the Chicago L lines, excepting the little-used Green and Orange Lines, go into the Chicago suburbs. And, according to you, if a rail line isn't in the city limits proper, then it doesn't count. Chicago has a smaller rail system than even Dallas going by your made-up rules.

And there's no commuter rail in Chicago, because the Metra is 95% suburban ridership, and all the lines go into the suburbs.

And cities like Paris, Sydney, London, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Osaka and the like have tiny transit systems, because the vast majority of their rail networks are outside arbitrary city limits.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

You're lucky this is the Chicago Forum because you'd likely put some noses out of joint by quoting the same thing in the New York forums.

No, actually, I'm pretty confident that 99% of the people on C-D are aware that NJ is part of the NY metro, and that city limits aren't proxies for regions or metro areas. That's only news to you.

City limits are arbitrary and have nothing to do with a region's transit orientation. Chicago wouldn't have a different transit network, or different transit orientation, if its city limits grew or shrank. Municipal boundaries have zero to do with metropolitan transit networks.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

Jersey City may be "just across" the Hudson River from NYC but the fact that it is in another state makes it all the more harder to plan a new transportation link between the two.

Which has nothing to do with anything under discussion. The point is that the rail exists, not whether or not planning or expanding the rail has more or fewer logistical issues.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

The HBLR extension into Staten Island is only a proposed idea; it has not taken off and lately seems to have come off the books entirely (and I wonder why ).

Which also has nothing to do with the conversation. And you completely made up your last "point". HBLR is planned to extend to SI, and is expected to merge with the planned West Shore Line, which would also be light rail.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

But if you didn't get my point, what I am trying to tell you is Chicago best not follow the example of Boston, LA, or any other Alpha city that runs light rail because you will face overwhelming crowd issues (as if heavy rail already doesn't).

No we got your odd point, but you're completely wrong. Light rail has nothing to do with "crowd issues", as there are light rail lines with higher capacity than heavy rail lines. There are light rail lines with much heavier capacity than Chicago's busiest heavy rail line. There are even bus lines with heavier ridership than the Red Line. The issue isn't mode of transit, it's how the mode is implemented.

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

What do you mean by high capacity light rail? You're trying to tell me that a 1-2 car light rail set can fit the same crush capacity as a 6-8 car heavy rail set?

All wrong. Light rail vs heavy rail has nothing to do with the number of cars in a train. There are heavy rail networks with low capacity, and light rail networks with high capacity.