100 miles of light rail vs. 50 miles of heavy rail (metro, versus, suburbs)
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.
"Next generation" mass transit systems in Metro areas like Dallas, San Diego, Seattle, Houston, etc. are overwhelmingly centered around light rail as opposed to the more expensive and difficult to install heavy rail. Sometimes it seems as if the message is that heavy rail is yesterday and light rail is today.
So....
You are the deciding executive in a metro area somewhere between Atlanta and Los Angeles on the population/population density spectrum. Significant growth is predicted. With the money allotted for mass transit, you can choose 100 miles of LRT or 50 miles of HRT. You have a metro bus system that has supplanted a massive legacy streetcar system.
"Next generation" mass transit systems ... are overwhelmingly centered around light rail
... it seems as if the message is that heavy rail is yesterday and light rail is today.
Whaddaya mean by 'seems' ?
Of course LIGHT rail is the choice for people moving.
I'm a heavy rail fan, but I voted for light rail here because you get more bang for the buck, and if you design the system right, you can get not only the speed but also nearly the carrying capacity of heavy rail with a system I call "light metro" (no grade crossings, car-floor-level boarding at stations).
DART comes close, but it's on the surface in mixed traffic downtown. The city does plan to build a downtown subway to ease the pressure on the surface route, which is getting clogged.
The most fully realized light metro system I know of is St. Louis Metrolink.
Atlanta has nearly 50 miles of heavy rail and imo it's better than DART and probably better than what they're building in Seattle and those are around 100 miles in length. So I picked heavy rail. My ideal though would be 4 lines with no interlining that are about 12 miles in length. Then commuter rail to the suburbs since that wasn't excluded.
Atlanta has nearly 50 miles of heavy rail and imo it's better than DART and probably better than what they're building in Seattle and those are around 100 miles in length. So I picked heavy rail. My ideal though would be 4 lines with no interlining that are about 12 miles in length. Then commuter rail to the suburbs since that wasn't excluded.
DART and LINK (Seattle) are very different - LINK is light rail but will be largely grade-separated, with subway and elevated stops in the heart of urban neighborhoods. It already has a subway going through Downtown to the University and will continue another 5 miles and 4 stops underground to the North End of the city when Northgate Link opens in 2021. Then that will be extended further North elevated by 2024. They are also building a grade-separated light rail to Belluvue and Redmond (including a Downtown Bellevue tunnel) and a second Downtown Seattle Subway Tunnel that will cut through various other inner neighborhoods. It's a $54 Billion project.
DART is largely commuter oriented and hits a lot of lower density areas. Even when they go underground through Downtown (which is a ways away from happening) it will still be at grade for much of the rest of it.
My take is MARTA will always be better than DART, but LINK will be better than MARTA by the time the Tacoma Dome extension opens within the next 10 years, and that gap will only grow as new planned extensions come on line.
Atlanta has nearly 50 miles of heavy rail and imo it's better than DART and probably better than what they're building in Seattle and those are around 100 miles in length. So I picked heavy rail. My ideal though would be 4 lines with no interlining that are about 12 miles in length. Then commuter rail to the suburbs since that wasn't excluded.
Pretty much my sentiments on this.
L.A. only has about 17 miles right now, but those 17 miles are a beast. The upcoming 9 miles will likely make that look tame in comparison. Dropping down into to a subway downtown and then popping out in Hollywood a few minutes later is one of the greatest things.
It depends on where you're building it. If we're saying costs are going to be the same for 50 miles of heavy rail versus 100 miles of light rail, then the former is generally a better addition for any city with significant urban nodes. Unfortunately, heavy rail is generally more than twice the cost of light rail.
L.A. only has about 17 miles right now, but those 17 miles are a beast. The upcoming 9 miles will likely make that look tame in comparison. Dropping down into to a subway downtown and then popping out in Hollywood a few minutes later is one of the greatest things.
LA actually does do interlining and it's not a bad idea for LA. I think a system where there's interlining rapid transit with a max two services per line on certain corridors makes sense for LA. It's also what DC and NYC has a lot of. BART's four services interlining in SF is very much not ideal.
For LA, I'd think a second branch in the SFV makes sense and when going down to Hollywood there's another line that splits southwest towards West Hollywood and Beverly Hills (and possibly heading due south at some point for Culver City, the airport, and the Beach Cities) instead of east through Hollywood. Meanwhile, those same southwestern track also has another service that uses those tracks, but then follows the Red Line east through Hollywood and diverges near Barnsdall Park to follow where Hollywood Boulevard becomes Sunset Boulevard as a second line towards downtown LA. Finally, the Red Line part going south on Vermont also hosts another service, but extends southwards along Vermont for a while and extends northwards towards Los Feliz, Glendale, and Burbank. With interlining, an additional 50 miles of heavy rail on top of the current Purple Line extension would radically transform LA transit.
It depends on where you're building it. If we're saying costs are going to be the same for 50 miles of heavy rail versus 100 miles of light rail, then the former is generally a better addition for any city with significant urban nodes. Unfortunately, heavy rail is generally more than twice the cost of light rail.
It will add to the cost somewhat, but IMO what most cities contemplating rail transit should do is what Seattle's doing, which is building a light metro system. (Theirs includes a real engineering feat: the first permanent railroad line built over a pontoon bridge. It posed some interesting engineering challenges.)
And again, St. Louis Metrolink is an already existing example of the mode. They got it on the cheap because not only was there plenty of existing unused mainline railroad ROW Bi-State could use, there was even a downtown subway tunnel available as part of the package. And a historic Mississippi River span (the first one built across the river) got restored to full use to boot as part of the project.
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.
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.
