MUNI vs other cities Light Rail (Culver City: trains, commute, building)

[matt345]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Separate light rail from traffic and it is pretty good. The green line here in LA doesn't really go anywhere useful, but it's on its own elevated track so it really flies. The blue line is separated from traffic most of the time so it goes 30 miles from Long Beach to LA in about 70 minutes. Compare that with 45 to 60 minutes (depending on how flaky Muni is being) on the N-Judas traveling about what, 6 or 7 miles from the beach to downtown SF. But the blue line runs in street traffic in downtown LB and LA and really crawls. Once it hits the separated tracks at Del Amo it really flies.

I was just going to add that LA probably utilizes light rail to its fullest potential better than any other US city I've been to except for Portland. I LOVE the Gold Line!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

It's also significantly cheaper to build, which is why most cities build them (instead of going all of the way and building an efficient, but very expensive, subway system). Other than that, there aren't any real advantages over a subway. If anything, buses can often be better because than light rail (as it's implemented in SF) because buses can at least get around street traffic and aren't stuck on tracks in a single lane. I've never understood the idea of putting a rail car on the street with traffic. At least give it its own right of way (like some cities do)...otherwise, what is the point?

Heavy rail does have it's advantages too. It can handle a much higher capacity which with metros with large and/ or dense populations is a better option. They can also attain higher speeds.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Heavy rail does have it's advantages too. It can handle a much higher capacity which with metros with large and/ or dense populations is a better option. They can also attain higher speeds.

I'm actually agreeing with you. Sorry if my previous post didn't really make that clear, though.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I'm actually agreeing with you. Sorry if my previous post didn't really make that clear, though.

It's all good. I'm the king of being unclear around here. I was also agreeing with what you said too.

[ccm123]

Driving in SF isn't really much better: stop, go, stop, go, stop...

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by ccm123

Driving in SF isn't really much better: stop, go, stop, go, stop...

That's true, but stop, go, stop, go, stop, go is still better than stop, stop, stop, go, stop stop stop go. SF is awesome to walk in, though.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I agree with this, light rail in general is terrible. The San Diego trolley also has to sit in traffic and wait at lights downtown. Seattle's lightrail also sucks. The muni metro perhaps sucks a bit more than those because there are too many of them on one line. The only real advantage light rail has over heavy rail (like BART) is that it can handle steeper grades and sharper turns which I guess that's why there is a light rail and Bart is limited.

I agree that the parts of the light rail systems that goes through downtowns of San Diego, Seattle, San Jose too are not very good. But SD, SJ, Seattle, along with LA have good examples of light rail that runs efficiently when it's built away from traffic. (Seattle's new line to the airport is very good.) SF does not. What they did with the K line is particularly idiotic.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I agree that the parts of the light rail systems that goes through downtowns of San Diego, Seattle, San Jose too are not very good. But SD, SJ, Seattle, along with LA have good examples of light rail that runs efficiently when it's built away from traffic. (Seattle's new line to the airport is very good.) SF does not. What they did with the K line is particularly idiotic.

SD's Trolley doesn't sit in traffic as it runs has its own separated right-of-way through downtown and along the entire system, so I'm not sure what Gentoo is talking about. It does have at-grade crossing though so it does have to deal with traffic lights. Outside of downtown it moves pretty quick, especially though Mission Valley where lots of parts are elevated.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I agree that the parts of the light rail systems that goes through downtowns of San Diego, Seattle, San Jose too are not very good. But SD, SJ, Seattle, along with LA have good examples of light rail that runs efficiently when it's built away from traffic. (Seattle's new line to the airport is very good.) SF does not. What they did with the K line is particularly idiotic.

The problem with SD's trolley is MTS's idiotic habit of making you transfer and wait all the freaking time! It greatly slows down trips unnecessarily. The green line and blue line shouldn't be separate lines for one. Until 2005 the blue line ended at Mission San Diego. It could have just continued onward. For a city SD's size it's also too limited. I didn't ride Seattles light rail as it opened more recently. From those I know in Seattle they say it's not very good. I can't remember the last time I was in SJ.

[Isebiel]

The only place I've seen with light rail that seemed useful was Portland. Denver's is okay, but it's still new and needs a lot of expansion, like... to the airport.