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.
While that is all good and well (and Atlanta is in the process of doing the same with it's old service rail network), those systems alone can not and do not approach the capacity and speed of a subway system. The only reason the Green Line in Boston has subway-esque usage is because:
1. Used in a extremely high density city.
2. Was build like a subway.
3. Connects to a subway.
Same thing goes for MUNI in San Francisco and SEPTA.
Oh yes they can , the average & top speed of most Light Rail is usually 10-20mph higher. & Capacity wise , they can also depends on how many trains are operated on the line. You will see over the next 2 decades as NJ , CT , MA , RI , PA , MD , VA build high capacity LRT lines or systems.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
Oh yes they can , the average & top speed of most Light Rail is usually 10-20mph higher. & Capacity wise , they can also depends on how many trains are operated on the line. You will see over the next 2 decades as NJ , CT , MA , RI , PA , MD , VA build high capacity LRT lines or systems.
There are no cities with light rail only systems that even come close to the speed, capacity, or convenience of any city with a subway. This is a fact, and has been provable over the course of a century. This is exactly why DC and Atlanta dumped their LRT systems, and San Francisco augmented theirs, with subways. That is unless you have actual usage data, not theories, to explain otherwise.
Haha, wait until more cities use Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) like the Orange and Silver Lines in LA, and the Silver Line in Boston. I actually support the use of a dedicated lane BRT to see if an area should even get light rail/heavy rail, since its more cost efficient. Remember, money doesn't grow on trees.
These are used by cities who can't afford light rail right now, but need something to alleviate the traffic in a certain corridor.
I can only speak for the Orange Line because I have used it a lot since I moved back to LA (and probably more so once I start working in Downtown LA in the next week or so), but it is pretty clear that it needs to be replaced by light rail, or even a heavy rail line. The LACMTA expected that it would take 10 years to reach a ridership level of 20,000 riders per day. However, by 2008, it already exceeded that amount (it only opened in October 2005)! In fact, more people used the Orange Line BRT than use the Gold Line Light Rail before the extension opened in late 2009! Metro | news | Ridership Statistics
I would support the Orange Line not only extending in the San Fernando Valley, but I would also support a conversion to Light Rail. No matter what time of day you get on, its always almost full. During Rush Hour, its even more full, especially at North Hollywood station where it connects to the Red Line subway.
Subways would be desirable, but its also extremely expensive nowadays. Until it becomes cheaper, then we need to explore other viable alternatives. It is what it is.
It's interesting, though...Seattle's new light rail line has the station spacing somewhere between typical light rail and heavy rail, and much of it is underground.
It is clearly light rail technology, but it has the feel of heavy rail in some parts (although, clearly, not the capacity)
There are no cities with light rail only systems that even come close to the speed, capacity, or convenience of any city with a subway. This is a fact, and has been provable over the course of a century. This is exactly why DC and Atlanta dumped their LRT systems, and San Francisco augmented theirs, with subways. That is unless you have actual usage data, not theories, to explain otherwise.
Thats not why , they were ripped out during great streetcar scandal. Only the Northeast & parts of the Midwest preserved there systems. Your arguing with a Northeast Rail buff , your not going to win. If you look it up on Wikipedia the averages speeds for the vehicles are there. Most Light Rail has a Top speed of 60mph and averages 50mph. Most Subways have a top speed of 50mph and average 30mph due to the amount of stops. Light rail usually has slighty less then the average Subway line.
There are no cities with light rail only systems that even come close to the speed, capacity, or convenience of any city with a subway. This is a fact, and has been provable over the course of a century. This is exactly why DC and Atlanta dumped their LRT systems, and San Francisco augmented theirs, with subways. That is unless you have actual usage data, not theories, to explain otherwise.
How about Portland? They have very good public transit with only light rail and streetcars.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2
How about Portland? They have very good public transit with only light rail and streetcars.
Portland is the exception, but it's only a semantical exception as they only manage 115,000 daily riders. That is only a fraction of what a subway system can handle.
Most LRT systems manage to only have 60,000 or less passengers per day. Most cities with subways have that many passengers pass through a single station in the course of rush hour.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
Thats not why , they were ripped out during great streetcar scandal.
True, the rails themselves were ripped up, but (I can only speak for Atlanta) the routes were converted to trolleybus routes so in effect nothing really changed. The routes stayed the same and actually got faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
Only the Northeast & parts of the Midwest preserved there systems.
That's not true. New Orleans and San Francisco have kept their systems in operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
Your arguing with a Northeast Rail buff , your not going to win.
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
If you look it up on Wikipedia the averages speeds for the vehicles are there. Most Light Rail has a Top speed of 60mph and averages 50mph. Most Subways have a top speed of 50mph and average 30mph due to the amount of stops. Light rail usually has slighty less then the average Subway line.
Not true. The systems in DC, Atlanta and SF can reach speeds of 80mph. Besides, what does how fast an LRT system theoretically can reach have do with the fact that LRT systems do not match heavy rail in capacity, convenience, and speed? It is a provable fact. The Green Line, MUNI, and SEPTA are exceptions to this rule, but for very specific reasons that are hard to duplicate elsewhere. Especially in cities without a subway.
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.
In fact, more people used the Orange Line BRT than use the Gold Line Light Rail before the extension opened in late 2009!
