I frequently make visits to LA or San Diego and one thing I find consistently with buses and light rail is a lack of capacity. Buses and light rail trains are often completely filled and can't fit more people in my experience. In LA the best transit service is in my experience consistently provided by the heavy rail system. Light rail and buses tend to lack speed and be noncompetitive with driving in terms of speed. Light rail and buses mix with traffic, which is especially a problem in big cities because they tend to have heavy amounts of traffic to begin with and with stop lights plus traffic transit service really gets slowed down. In my view a better choice for big cities in terms of speed and capacity is a heavy rail that is either elevated or a heavy rail subway. Most successful transit systems have heavy rail as a significant portion of the service they provide.
Railroad to Freedom
Try riding the Lexington Avenue line in New York during rush hours and you will find trains filled to capacity. Heavy rail costs about four times more to construct than light rail. Buses are overall most economical up to 20,000 passengers past a given point in an hour, but may not provide the comfort level needed to coax any motorists out of his/her car. Light rail is most economical and can do the job 20,000-50,000 passengers. Above that, you really need heavy rail to do the job. One B-division train of 8 75-foot cars or 10 60-foot cars can handle a rush hour crowd of 2500 people easily. On a 90-second headway, that gives 100,000 people/hour.
I suspect, knowing something about most USA light rail systems, that if you experienced capacity problems, the trains were not frequent enough and could have been more frequent, or needed more cars per train.
Light rail can be just as fast as heavy rail BUT ONLY ON DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY. (The C&EI and Indiana hig speed interurbans ran at 90mph.
Jerusalem Light Rail is reporting 110,000-120,000 passengers a day on one line. Part of the reason that the vast majority of trips do not use the full line, and one seat usually sees two or three fannies on it one end to the other,
Rapid transit and commuter rail, as pointed out above, are expensive and need a really high passenger count to justify their existence. The dedicated right-of-way required to improve speed is difficult to acquire from scratch in a central business district and unless an existing right-of-way is already in place, street running for at least part of the route is going to be a necessary evil.
" Buses are overall most economical up to 20,000 passengers past a given point in an hour"
Seriously? How many buses would that require?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Bus and light rail overlap somewhat and are best for lighter passenger density routes that are shorter in length, Buses have the advantage of flexibility of route. Heavy rail commuter is best on longer routes to a central point with greater intervals between stops and with heavy passenger density for the entire route. Saying one is better than the other is forcing an apples/oranges comparison. Inappropriate.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
20,000 past a given point in one direction would require a 180-passenger articulated bus about every 30 seconds, or about 120 buses. Just possible on dedicated lanes or private right-of-way with skip-stop operation and bus stops that can accommodate three at a time. Requires smooth transition to pull-off lanes at bus stops with bypass lanes continuing straight. Still, usually more economical than light rail. Would not consider it as the same quality from a transportation standpoint, however.
daveklepper 20,000 past a given point in one direction would require a 180-passenger articulated bus about every 30 seconds, or about 120 buses. Just possible on dedicated lanes or private right-of-way with skip-stop operation and bus stops that can accommodate three at a time.
20,000 past a given point in one direction would require a 180-passenger articulated bus about every 30 seconds, or about 120 buses. Just possible on dedicated lanes or private right-of-way with skip-stop operation and bus stops that can accommodate three at a time.
This poster does not think that number of buses is realistic in the US. However have you ever been to Santiago, Chile? It does run 200 / Hour buses but auto traffic not that heavy. By the way as well an overcrowded subway runs under one of those streets.
I agree it is not realistic with lanes shared with general traffic, only dedicated lanes with good policing or private right-of-way.
daveklepper I agree it is not realistic with lanes shared with general traffic, only dedicated lanes with good policing or private right-of-way.
The only dedicated lanes that I've seen that worked with any consistency are reverse-flow lanes on what are otherwise one-way streets. The transit authority in San Juan, PR uses them extensively and they seem to improve the timekeeping and speed of their bus routes.
The answer to BNSF's comment or question is "It depends, but generally heavy commuter rail requires a high traffic density and 30 mile length of route to be efficient, given the higher costs."
I have been impressed by the three section mini trains on a separate middle busway in Bogota Columbia.
Bagota is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Note high level boarding, separate ROW, fare collection in the station and not on the vehicle, and very frequent service.
IIRC, overall capacity is higher than regular buses, lower than light rail, and approximately the same to a little less than a streetcar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.