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.
Or you can be like Baltimore and have a ridiculous kluge of both light and heavy rail.
Baltimore's heavy rail line is a nice, reliable means of carrying large crowds -- of which it rarely sees. I commuted on the Metro Subway for 6 years, and at least 99 percent of the time, you could set your watch by it. Really, its only major problem is that there isn't more of it. Baltimore's light rail, on the other hand, is the poster child for how NOT to build light rail. I can't think of any American system that's worse.
As to the OP's question, I'm going with 50 miles of heavy rail. That'll get you decent coverage within the highest density part of the city in question, with 4 lines of 12.5 miles each, or maybe 3 lines of just under 17 miles each. I would aim for high capacity rail service in the city's core, instead of attempting the hybrid of heavy rail and commuter rail that Washington and San Francisco went for. (Unless, that is, the funding approval came from a regional vote, and political concerns mandate service into the suburbs.) Not only that, but the city could leverage transit oriented development around the stations of these lines to further enhance its ridership potential. Heavy rail has a greater carrying capacity than light rail does, and the fact that it's grade separated and has high platforms means that travel speeds can be greater than light rail. As a transit mode, it's objectively "better" (IMO), other than maybe by measures of cost efficiency.
Another poster brought up "light metro," and that's an intriguing option. I have no experience with St. Louis Metrolink, but I've ridden Seattle's line, and they've done it right. The carrying capacity is still less than heavy rail, but it's mostly grade separated, so it can get some decent travel speeds. If our hypothetical city can afford 50 miles of heavy rail, it could probably swing about 65 miles of light metro. And that would be a tough choice for me.
I know this is sort of a boring non-answer, but it would completely depend on the neighborhood makeup (population density figures don't tell the whole story) and the planning of the routes. I'd rather have 10 miles of effective heavy rail than 200 miles of poorly planned light rail in a city with a dense urban core. And since they're different methods of transit and serve difference purposes, you can't just say "same route near the center, but the 100 miles of light rail will extend further out." It doesn't work that way.
In a city like Atlanta, I think the light rail might be the better bet. Outside of the center it sprawls and is largely lower density. 100 miles of light rail will enable you to run multiple routes further (reaching more neighborhoods) while running into less risk of overcrowding. There's even space in Atlanta to run right-of-ways along major boulevards/avenues instead of having the LRVs mixing with traffic.
But in a city like Baltimore which is denser around the core and more compact overall, I think the heavy rail may be a better fit. It doesn't sprawl as far as Atlanta so covering greater distances isn't as important. 50 miles of heavy rail would enable you to run multiple lines connecting dense urban residential neighborhoods to the city center. The heavy rail would run faster and have a higher capacity than light rail which means you could move a lot of people fairly efficiently which is important considering the population density in/around the core.
I voted for 100 miles of light rail, since why wouldn't you vote for 100 over 50...But in reality a commuter rail system like Chicago's L, Metra, or Boston's MBTA or LA's Metrolink (all technically heavy rail) is best.
Commuter rail serves a different function from heavy rail. Granted, it might make sense in the type of city that the OP is describing. But the choices we were given were heavy rail or light rail.
Baltimore's heavy rail line is a nice, reliable means of carrying large crowds -- of which it rarely sees. I commuted on the Metro Subway for 6 years, and at least 99 percent of the time, you could set your watch by it. Really, its only major problem is that there isn't more of it. Baltimore's light rail, on the other hand, is the poster child for how NOT to build light rail. I can't think of any American system that's worse.
Indeed, the ridiculous "fishhook" of a subway system is pretty nice for what it is. It would have actually been a good system if it had been built as originally designed, with six legs going out past the Beltway, and an inner-city loop to provide more stops and access within the city. The later Light Rail system wouldn't have needed to be built at all.
DART and LINK (Seattle) are very different - LINK is light rail but will be . . .
DART is largely commuter oriented . . .
And how is LINK oriented? You don't say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
Baltimore's heavy rail line is a nice, reliable means of carrying large crowds -- of which it rarely sees. I commuted on the Metro Subway for 6 years, and at least 99 percent of the time, you could set your watch by it. Really, its only major problem is that there isn't more of it. Baltimore's light rail, on the other hand, is the poster child for how NOT to build light rail. I can't think of any American system that's worse. . . .
Another poster brought up "light metro," and that's an intriguing option. I have no experience with St. Louis Metrolink, but I've ridden Seattle's line, and they've done it right. The carrying capacity is still less than heavy rail, but it's mostly grade separated, so it can get some decent travel speeds. If our hypothetical city can afford 50 miles of heavy rail, it could probably swing about 65 miles of light metro. And that would be a tough choice for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I know this is sort of a boring non-answer, but it would completely depend on the neighborhood makeup (population density figures don't tell the whole story) and the planning of the routes. . . .
Actually, I would say that Irfox gets it closest - it is completely dependent on the planning of the routes. Heavy rail is designed to also carry freight. Light rail is for passengers. So, for the purpose of moving people, there is no significant difference, whereas ALL THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE is in how the route is planned. How, and where, are the stations - the entry kiosks - all that jazz. HOW OFTEN does the train run, how reliable is it, all that jazz.
The advantage of ANY rail as a public transport is two-fold. One of those is preference. Almost universally, around the globe, consumers prefer rail over buses. AMOF, with some notable exceptions, like jitney buses in various parts of the world, bus transit is the LEAST preferred mode of transit. The UK is an exception to this trend, and, as I mentioned, jitney buses may also be. However, jitney buses usually serve transportation needs that are not serviced by rail.
The second benefit/impact of rail - light or heavy - is permanence. Building use and population density remain higher near usable rail lines. The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission* figured that out some 30-40 years ago, and published a book about its findings. Sorry, can't find the book today! (No reference. )
Personally, I prefer heavy rail, just on an emotional level. But in terms of urban planning? You're looking at the wrong question.
The question that matters is "How well is the system planned". Any system, to be successful, needs low cost, both in terms of money, and time. Service should be highly frequent, and reliable. And the actual cost should be lower than alternatives.
Too often, with the political atmosphere in the U.S., the emphasis in the U.S. is "it should pay it's own way". Well, shucks, folks, highways don't pay their own way! While this trend is particularly notable in the last 40 years, it has been around, in various forms for longer. Ike was the first to diss rail transit. And he managed to get rid of a lot of it. At the time, he thought he was showing good foresight. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out quite the way he hoped. But, some parts of his vision did become reality - and welcome bits of it.
Anyway, back to the point. Planning is the key, not heavy or light rail. E.g.: What are you doing to make this mode of transit the PREFERRED mode? Is it easy to find? Is it reliable? Does it run frequently? Does it cost less than driving? Etc.
*Or maybe it was the Regional Plan Association, which, more or less, has replaced the function of the TSRPC. Sorry, I don't remember enough detail. It was too long ago. However, the book I refer to was, I believed at the time, seminal in the field. They clearly showed distinct advantages to keeping rail systems alive and active. If I ever can run across a reference to it, and if I remember this post, I'll come back some day and stick it in here as a reference.
Indeed, the ridiculous "fishhook" of a subway system is pretty nice for what it is. It would have actually been a good system if it had been built as originally designed, with six legs going out past the Beltway, and an inner-city loop to provide more stops and access within the city. The later Light Rail system wouldn't have needed to be built at all.
The problem in Baltimore is that it didn't have its act completely together when it applied for Federal assistance with its first subway line.
By the time it was ready to build another, the Feds had soured on heavy-rail rapid transit routes for all but a very few (Los Angeles) cities. And even in LA, most of what's gotten built since the initial Red/Purple subway lines is light rail.
Heavy rail is designed to also carry freight. Light rail is for passengers.
Oops!
"Heavy rail" refers not to service using mainline railroad tracks but rather what may also be called "subway," "metro" or "rapid transit" — it too is designed to carry passengers exclusively.
What distinguishes "heavy" from "light" rail is:
--station spacing: rapid transit stations are often further apart than light rail stations are
--fare collection: rapid transit lines collect fares at station entrances (or in more recent systems, via the "honor system" of validated tickets) while light rail may collect fares on board the vehicle
--boarding and alighting: less true now than it used to be, but rapid transit vehicles collect and release passengers at platforms level with the car floor while light rail vehicles may require riders to climb steps to board the vehicle
--car/train capacity: a rapid transit car can hold more people than a light rail vehicle can, and rapid transit trains usually have more cars than light-rail consists, which typically max out at two
Even with these differences, smaller cities might still wish to use light rail instead.
1. Commuter rail is the really large stock that travels the longest distances of all on a single leg, often under power of a locomotive but not always: Metro-North, LIRR, NJ Transit, MBTA Purple, VRE, MARC, TRE, etc., but also Austin's Capital MetroRail, DCTA-A, etc.
2. Heavy rail is the near-city hub, large, 10' wide, always 3rd rail, raised platform: MTA, MARTA, WMATA, BART, etc.
3. LRT is most often catenary powered, almost always articulated somewhere, usually 8' wide cars, (rarely raised platform, but occasionally--Muni, Norristown High Speed): DART, Hudson-Bergen, MBTA Green, Lynx, and a zillion others. Regions can get a lot of range for the price, and some of the lines rival the heavies in velocity.
Heavy rail doesn't mean much if the tracks can't absorb any speed--the MTA is a mere people mover that way, little more than an enclosed moving sidewalk.
1. Commuter rail is the really large stock that travels the longest distances of all on a single leg, often under power of a locomotive but not always: Metro-North, LIRR, NJ Transit, MBTA Purple, VRE, MARC, TRE, etc., but also Austin's Capital MetroRail, DCTA-A, etc.
2. Heavy rail is the near-city hub, large, 10' wide, always 3rd rail, raised platform: MTA, MARTA, WMATA, BART, etc.
3. LRT is most often catenary powered, almost always articulated somewhere, usually 8' wide cars, (rarely raised platform, but occasionally--Muni, Norristown High Speed): DART, Hudson-Bergen, MBTA Green, Lynx, and a zillion others. Regions can get a lot of range for the price, and some of the lines rival the heavies in velocity.
Heavy rail doesn't mean much if the tracks can't absorb any speed--the MTA is a mere people mover that way, little more than an enclosed moving sidewalk.
Which one? (Certainly not the one in New York.)
Older heavy rail lines, those built to Interborough Rapid Transit dimensions (i.e., everything built before Boston's Red Line in 1909-12), have shorter, narrower cars, about 7' wide by 40' long: numbered subway lines in New York, Boston's Orange Line (the first rapid-transit subway in the country, running through the trolley subway from 1901-09) and Blue Line (a former trolley subway), Philadelphia's Market-Frankford Line, all of Chicago's 'L' lines.
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.
)
