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.
Light rail isn't the be-all end-all panacea for cities. The almost obsessive conversation around it would lead one to believe that it is. Put in light rail, tick the box, declare victory and "urbanity", and move on.
Cities and metros need to be considered with more nuance than that, and they each need their own set of solutions based on their individual needs. While light rail may be a good solution for one, it might not be for another. Light rail by itself without sound city planning and development action is just a glamour/ego project. Comprehensive transit strategies may or may not include light rail, and that's okay.
Excellent point and exactly where cities like Orlando have failed miserably. Sure it's a feather in the cap for urbanity and gives that false sense of security in keeping up with the Joneses (other Sunbelt cites with poor planning) but also a taxpayer burden for decades to come minus any real benefit to alleviating traffic/commutes. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) make a hell of a lot more sense in already built-out areas minus a central core people commute in/out of. Dedicating traffic lanes with pylons, building raised medians for stops and coordinating traffic lights costs a fraction of street level or elevated LRT. Sadly though Americans in general have issue with bus transit and a snobby outlook versus rail options. BRT could do wonders for Atlanta's traffic issues with infill and cities like Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, DFW and Houston would benefit given their sprawl and lack of a predominate central core. The DC area would be prime for infill of BRT between exsting MetroRail stations and varying employment sites in suburban areas like Northern Virginia's Reston, Herndon, Chantilly, Sterling and Tysons Corner.
Excellent point and exactly where cities like Orlando have failed miserably. Sure it's a feather in the cap for urbanity and gives that false sense of security in keeping up with the Joneses (other Sunbelt cites with poor planning) but also a taxpayer burden for decades to come minus any real benefit to alleviating traffic/commutes. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) make a hell of a lot more sense in already built-out areas minus a central core people commute in/out of. Dedicating traffic lanes with pylons, building raised medians for stops and coordinating traffic lights costs a fraction of street level or elevated LRT. Sadly though Americans in general have issue with bus transit and a snobby outlook versus rail options. BRT could do wonders for Atlanta's traffic issues with infill and cities like Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, DFW and Houston would benefit given their sprawl and lack of a predominate central core. The DC area would be prime for infill of BRT between exsting MetroRail stations and varying employment sites in suburban areas like Northern Virginia's Reston, Herndon, Chantilly, Sterling and Tysons Corner.
The problem with BRT in a congested city is that for it to be effective, you need grade separation. Well, that grade separation is the majority of the expense and political capital needed for LRT as well. So while you can save money with BRT, it's still very expensive and you end up with "just" a bus system. So if you are going to go through the hassle of grade separation you might as well go all the way with rail.
This is basically why Austin went with LRT, even though the planners probably slightly preferred an "ART" system (basically BRT but where the busses are small, more frequent, autonomously driven shuttles). I think had they not done LRT it would have failed, because people won't sign off on spending billions for a bus system.
The problem with BRT in a congested city is that for it to be effective, you need grade separation. Well, that grade separation is the majority of the expense and political capital needed for LRT as well. So while you can save money with BRT, it's still very expensive and you end up with "just" a bus system. So if you are going to go through the hassle of grade separation you might as well go all the way with rail.
This is basically why Austin went with LRT, even though the planners probably slightly preferred an "ART" system (basically BRT but where the busses are small, more frequent, autonomously driven shuttles). I think had they not done LRT it would have failed, because people won't sign off on spending billions for a bus system.
I might have misused the term, but I specifically mean that it has its own right of way and is not impeded by traffic conditions. LRT that gets stuck in traffic (and I realize this exists, I've been on it several places) is really, really dumb and pointless. For transit to catch on in a car dominated area it needs the ability to "skip" rush hour traffic.
The problem with BRT in a congested city is that for it to be effective, you need grade separation. Well, that grade separation is the majority of the expense and political capital needed for LRT as well. So while you can save money with BRT, it's still very expensive and you end up with "just" a bus system. So if you are going to go through the hassle of grade separation you might as well go all the way with rail.
This is basically why Austin went with LRT, even though the planners probably slightly preferred an "ART" system (basically BRT but where the busses are small, more frequent, autonomously driven shuttles). I think had they not done LRT it would have failed, because people won't sign off on spending billions for a bus system.
I think this is a key and underrated point. Also, I've heard (and it makes sense to me) that businesses are more interested in moving next to light rail stations than BRT stations because the infrastructure is more permanent --- they know the city isn't gonna just tear it out a few years later due to shifting commute patterns.
Excellent point and exactly where cities like Orlando have failed miserably. Sure it's a feather in the cap for urbanity and gives that false sense of security in keeping up with the Joneses (other Sunbelt cites with poor planning) but also a taxpayer burden for decades to come minus any real benefit to alleviating traffic/commutes. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) make a hell of a lot more sense in already built-out areas minus a central core people commute in/out of. Dedicating traffic lanes with pylons, building raised medians for stops and coordinating traffic lights costs a fraction of street level or elevated LRT. Sadly though Americans in general have issue with bus transit and a snobby outlook versus rail options. BRT could do wonders for Atlanta's traffic issues with infill and cities like Orlando, Tampa, Phoenix, DFW and Houston would benefit given their sprawl and lack of a predominate central core. The DC area would be prime for infill of BRT between exsting MetroRail stations and varying employment sites in suburban areas like Northern Virginia's Reston, Herndon, Chantilly, Sterling and Tysons Corner.
SF muni metro rail (cable cars are tourist stuff) and bus is extensive as it should be. New Orleans rail is tiny. Not sure about Portland is that place really that dense?
I think you're missing my point. You essentially criticized streetcars and suggested they are not mass transit. I was telling you that they very much can serve a clear and important purpose. Streetcars are intended for dense, central areas to move lots of people short distances. (stops close together, in mixed traffic, fairly low speeds) In an ideal transit environment, streetcar systems will always be exclusively in the central core, where LRT, heavy/commuter rail, and/or BRT connect to the tiny streetcar system. Tiny is not an insult, it's what it should be. Portland's streetcar is pretty tiny, and it might be as close to ideal as there is in the US.
I think you need to read up on transit to understand the definitions before debating about it.
I might have misused the term, but I specifically mean that it has its own right of way and is not impeded by traffic conditions. LRT that gets stuck in traffic (and I realize this exists, I've been on it several places) is really, really dumb and pointless. For transit to catch on in a car dominated area it needs the ability to "skip" rush hour traffic.
I believe you are thinking of two separate conditions. Exclusive right of way is when the transit mode has its own lane (or other separate pathway) that is not used by other vehicles, but it still is subject to cross streets. This is the case with all, or at least most, BRT systems of which I am aware. Grade separation is when the transit mode has no intersections with other traffic, whether heading in the same direction or at cross streets. This is what your typical urban heavy-rail subway system is. Exclusive rights of way are vastly cheaper to build than grade separation is. But, as is usually the case, you get what you pay for.
I can't stand this "look Mom I have LRT too" mentality that so many US cities have. You do not build transit for developers, for ribbon cutting ceremonies, or for make-work projects but rather to provide an effective, affordable, fast, safe, reliable, and accessible transportation service. Full stop.
These cities like Austin & Nashville have incredibly low ridership levels where the building of a high capacity transit line is a horrific waste of precious transit funds. What's more they build the lines and then starve it of operational funds. They also don't provide the key bus service to connect people to those LRT stations somehow expecting everyone to walk 2 or 3 km to the nearest station.
BRT often provides a far superior and faster transit experience than many of these LRT lines do in the same context while doing so at a far lower price. It's far better to have 30 km of BRT than 10 km of LRT as the larger BRT system provides the same quality of service to hundreds of thousands of more residence and hundreds of more destinations. What's more they can provide faster non-transfer trips due to interlining and they are far easier to expand.
The advantages of LRT over BRT which are often sighted {smoother ride, no emissions, lower operation costs, less vehicle maintenance} have also been greatly reduced over the last few years with the advent of electric/hydrogen buses. Electric buses offer the much quieter ride, no emissions, faster performance, lower vehicle maintenance costs, level boarding, and reduced operational costs that were once the domain of LRT. Even the higher capacity of LRT has been reduced with the increasing usage of bi-articulated buses.
As for the ride, yes steel running rail will always be more comfortable than buses but this again is greatly reduced with BRT lanes. It's not so much the tires that cause the vibrations and bouncy ride of buses but rather the roads that they run on. This is why highway buses offer a more comfortable ride than local transit ones.............the roads are well maintained.
It doesn't even need to be BRT. Regular buses plus HOV lanes will go far.
You can spider-web dozens of local bus routes into neighborhoods, group them into basic HOV lanes for the last 5-10 miles into Downtown or other centers, then have a bus mall in Downtown proper.
That means a lot of bus routes in those HOV stretches. You can includes stops that operate much like BRT, with bus-only ramps and buses every couple minutes. People at those stops will get outstanding frequency and speed as long as the HOV lanes are managed well.
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.
