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.
For SF, I would say it counts, their inner city portion functions the same as a subway system, but with petite trains.
It doesn't function like a typical subway system, because it's low capacity light rail. It's closer to a bus in terms of capacity than a traditional heavy rail line.
That's a light rail line, though. It's partially underground, so, yes, can be called a "subway", but I assume that isn't what people are thinking of.
Maybe, posters have been discussing the future LINK light rail subway in Seattle. Light rail subways don't have as high of a capacity as rapid transit but provide about the same speed and reliability as rapid transit. A link light rail train can carry 200 people per 2 car trainset and 4 car trains are possible after an extension. Combined with high headways, this could be the same as moderately used subway lines. Vancouver's Canada Line has cars (2 car trainsets) that hold 334 people max has a ridership of 137,000 daily for 12 miles, similar to many American rapid transit lines.
It doesn't function like a typical subway system, because it's low capacity light rail. It's closer to a bus in terms of capacity than a traditional heavy rail line.
That is debatable, light rail can run with more than one or two cars, a number of systems are running wit three cars. Also, even with shorter trains, it gives a system the flexibility to provide more trains to reduce wait time if needed.
I think in the sense of modern day rail, light rail is going to be the dominate force with old heavy rail systems being only in the cities that currently have those systems running.
I think in the sense of modern day rail, light rail is going to be the dominate force with old heavy rail systems being only in the cities that currently have those systems running.
High-density cities need the capacity that heavy rail rapid transit provides. Most US cities that can take advantage of that already have heavy rail rapid transit. There's a good reason why say, Paris isn't building new light rail subways. The cost of a grade separated light rail line isn't much less than heavy rail. Going back to Vancouver's Skytrain, one line uses 6 car trains at rush hour. The Canada Line only uses 2 car trains, but at rush hour runs them at high frequencies.
High-density cities need the capacity that heavy rail rapid transit provides. Most US cities that can take advantage of that already have heavy rail rapid transit. There's a good reason why say, Paris isn't building new light rail subways. The cost of a grade separated light rail line isn't much less than heavy rail. Going back to Vancouver's Skytrain, one line uses 6 car trains at rush hour. The Canada Line only uses 2 car trains, but at rush hour runs them at high frequencies.
Actually, they are. T6 is partially subway, opened 2014-2016. You're mostly correct. The only difference between light and heavy rail is really the capacity the systems are designed for. Generally it's so expensive to build subways that it seldom makes sense to do it unless it's being designed for high capacity systems that would be heavy rail. There's exceptions though, such as T6 in Paris or Central Subway in San Francisco or LINK in Seattle or Blue Line in LA. Really though you start blurring the lines between heavy and light rail though when you go subway. Eg, Blue Line (partial subway) has a ridership of over 80,000. That's getting up there with the busier (sans NYC) heavy rail rapid transit systems averaged out over the lines.
This is a pretty simple breakdown of the two different systems. I for one love subway heavy rail trains, but for most of the US I think light rail is more than capable of meeting most needs.
Maybe, posters have been discussing the future LINK light rail subway in Seattle. Light rail subways don't have as high of a capacity as rapid transit but provide about the same speed and reliability as rapid transit. A link light rail train can carry 200 people per 2 car trainset and 4 car trains are possible after an extension. Combined with high headways, this could be the same as moderately used subway lines. Vancouver's Canada Line has cars (2 car trainsets) that hold 334 people max has a ridership of 137,000 daily for 12 miles, similar to many American rapid transit lines.
and the green lines in boston have very ridership per mile as light rail
the SF example is more traditional and mostly single car, similar to the light rail underground in philly (better ridership though) even some of the same rolling stock
SF leverage this as Bart is a trunk line down only one corrider o i highly used but not as effecient as it i getting off the street in the core, again very imilar to philly in this regard
What the green line i in Boton i different to me in capacity and looks like the Seattle version will be good as well maybe not quite HR but pretty effecient
in other news the BSL subway line in Philly is once again getting serious conideration for extending to the Navy yard, we shall see
taking LRT oiff the street in the core can be very beneficial however
This is a pretty simple breakdown of the two different systems. I for one love subway heavy rail trains, but for most of the US I think light rail is more than capable of meeting most needs.
Not really. It's a breakdown of the two different systems that are used in Denver. Commuter rail generally runs on freight tracks though, which requires running cars that get classified as heavy rail. Light rail systems often are blended commuter/urban systems like Link in Seattle. Incidentally, Central Link is basically halfway between Denver's light rail and commuter rail as it is basically a hybrid commuter and urban transit system. Central Link uses 1,500 V DC power which allows it to run larger cars and run them at higher speeds than the typical light rail system.
Not really. It's a breakdown of the two different systems that are used in Denver. Commuter rail generally runs on freight tracks though, which requires running cars that get classified as heavy rail. Light rail systems often are blended commuter/urban systems like Link in Seattle. Incidentally, Central Link is basically halfway between Denver's light rail and commuter rail as it is basically a hybrid commuter and urban transit system. Central Link uses 1,500 V DC power which allows it to run larger cars and run them at higher speeds than the typical light rail system.
I was referring more to speed and capacity, not really the power portion. Each metro uses light rail differently, some use it more as a commuter rail and other use it more as a local rail system. The point is, light rail has the ability to be much more flexible than heavy rail that is found in traditional subway system cities.
Though another thing worth looking at is Chicago's El system because they use a smaller car that run on shorter lines than what is found in places like NYC. Of course we could really get crazy and look at systems in other countries that are far superior to what we have in the US.
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.
