What do all of you locals think of the rail system in Phoenix? (Mesa: apartments, costs)

[man4857]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Heavy rail is like the Chicago L or NYC Subway, same rail gauge as freight cars, and is capable of speeds up to 70mph. Where light rail is only capable of speeds up to about 35mph and is lighter gauge rail tracks

In addition, one important distinction you missed too is that light rail does not have exclusive right of way and it's shared between surface streets and vehicular traffic however heavy rail is completely independent and has it's own right of way. Easy way to think of it is: light rail = local streets; heavy rail = freeway

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by man4857

In addition, one important distinction you missed too is that light rail does not have exclusive right of way and it's shared between surface streets and vehicular traffic however heavy rail is completely independent and has it's own right of way. Easy way to think of it is: light rail = local streets; heavy rail = freeway

That is not necessarily true all the time. If you were to look at Denver's light rail (RTD) which has about 47 miles of rail line, I would guess 90% or more of the lines have their own right-of-way, being built either in old railroad ROW, along side the interstate or in the middle of the interstate, with only the downtown area having some rail lines along surface streets. This in turn makes Denver's light rail, pretty quick as compared to Phoenix's Metro.

I realize that Denver definitely "lucked out" in a way when constructing their light rail system, but the Valley Metro will have a section going down the middle of I-10, which will be its own ROW and not be on local streets and should move quite quickly as compared to the rest of the system. Could Valley Metro have decided to place the light rail lines (outside of downtown) along I-10, I-17, 101, 202, US-60, AZ-51 in their own ROW and make the system move a lot quicker, sure, and they still might down the road in the future.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

I agree but because the trains don't have fareboxes, there should be more security guards or law enforcement to ensure passengers are buying tickets.

The honor system doesn't work and public transportation loses a lot of money because too many people are cheating the system.

And how is it that you know this? Evidence, statistics, etc. please.

Clearly there are people that abuse the system, that's true of just about everything in our society. The question is how many and and what cost, and how that compares to the cost of additional fare inspectors.

[sexxxcblac]

Lt Rail trains are powered by catenary lines on top of the trains. Heavy rail trains are powered by the third rail on the ground.
The difference is heavy rail trains go underground under the city, so the power source has to be underground hence the third rail.
Both Lt Rail and heavy rail trains are capable to go 100 mph or better, the only difference as other posters have mentioned is right-of-way and most importantly a straight way.
And anyone who has used subways will tell you heavy rail trains only go fast when they have a straight way, other than that they move just as slow as a Lt Rail train in between platforms.
I was a train operator for many years.
I've operated every type of train you can imagine.
Heavy rail operator in NYC, Chicago. Commuter train operator in L.A.
Lt Rail train operator in San Diego where I got my start.
Any question about rail I can answer.
From an operators perspective to management, anything you want to know.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by sexxxcblac

Lt Rail trains are powered by catenary lines on top of the trains. Heavy rail trains are powered by the third rail on the ground.
The difference is heavy rail trains go underground under the city, so the power source has to be underground hence the third rail.
Both Lt Rail and heavy rail trains are capable to go 100 mph or better, the only difference as other posters have mentioned is right-of-way and most importantly a straight way.
And anyone who has used subways will tell you heavy rail trains only go fast when they have a straight way, other than that they move just as slow as a Lt Rail train in between platforms.
I was a train operator for many years.
I've operated every type of train you can imagine.
Heavy rail operator in NYC, Chicago. Commuter train operator in L.A.
Lt Rail train operator in San Diego where I got my start.
Any question about rail I can answer.
From an operators perspective to management, anything you want to know.

They don't have to go underground, but they do need a dedicated roadway. They can be elevated.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by man4857

In addition, one important distinction you missed too is that light rail does not have exclusive right of way and it's shared between surface streets and vehicular traffic however heavy rail is completely independent and has it's own right of way. Easy way to think of it is: light rail = local streets; heavy rail = freeway

Not necessarily. There's a section of the I210 in southern CA which has a light rail line in the freeway median. Elevators & escalators are located at the overpasses so that passengers can enter at the street level and take them down to the stations at the freeway level. It's really an interesting concept, and I'm thinking this might be what they have in mind for the future I10 light rail line. I'd personally prefer to keep light rail on surface streets, and use that big empty I10 dirt median for extra traffic lanes ... however, rail (not more lanes) appears to be the plan thus far.

[cactusland]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

They don't have to go underground, but they do need a dedicated roadway. They can be elevated.

Bingo. Elevated rail would probably be a much better solution for much of the valley for tough spots to get it across.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by cactusland

Bingo. Elevated rail would probably be a much better solution for much of the valley for tough spots to get it across.

Wonder how the cost compares. Also makes me remember the controversy about the Papago Freeway decades ago, when it was proposed in the 60s as an elevated road across downtown (100 feet up) and was ultimately rejected in a public vote.

[pbenjamin]

ValTrans was going to be an elevated system.

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by observer53

Wonder how the cost compares. Also makes me remember the controversy about the Papago Freeway decades ago, when it was proposed in the 60s as an elevated road across downtown (100 feet up) and was ultimately rejected in a public vote.

I guess it would come down to:

Cost of relocating any/not as many utilities (underground or in the air) with an elevated track depending on where the pylons go, plus the overhead railway concrete structure itself with maybe elevated stations?

vs.

Cost of relocating all underground utilities directly under the ROW if the track is built right on the ground

I would guess even with the possibility of having to relocate less utilities with an elevated track (?), the cost would be much higher for that type of system, although it could go much quicker, with less stopping, than the current sytem.