blue streak 1a bus IMHO does not ride as well as a LRT
Oh, I don't know....It depends a lot on the bus. An MCI D4500 rides as well as most light rail lines I've ridden - as long as you sit forward of the rear axles.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Phoebe Vet If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus. Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?
Phoebe Vet If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus.
If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus.
Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?
Yes.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
oltmannd Phoebe Vet If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not BRT it is just a bus. Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?
Phoebe Vet If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not BRT it is just a bus.
If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not BRT it is just a bus.
Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?
Light rail cannot run in the street with no additional infrastructure. It requires track and an electric source. That said, I do not believe that rail of any kind belongs in the street. The dedicated right of way is one of rail's biggest advantages.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/07/3711178/light-rail-attracting-apartment.html
To add to your point, Dave, economic development around stations is one thing that rail transit is all about and always has been all about.
I also agree that a dedicated right of way is the only way that makes sense for any kind of rapid transit. Even if a street has a low enough volume of traffic to allow mass transit to move at a reasonable speed we know that over time that street will attract more traffic and any speed advantage of mass transit will be lost. Also, if we start with a street system and later seek to move it to a dedicated right of way over time land costs will have gone up adding to the expense of the system. It isn't exactly rocket science to understand the principle of "Do it right the first time."
Phoebe Vet http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/07/3711178/light-rail-attracting-apartment.html
Dave; will the blue line be able to handle this additional traffic ? How is the planning going for making that route 3 unit capable ? Has consideration been made to make some trips not cover the full route ? Are more cars going to be ordered for the blue line ?
CATS has already ordered 22 additional SR-70s.
I'm not positive, but I believe lengthening the platforms is built into the Blue Line Extension project.
A full-funding grant agreement providing $580m towards the cost of extending Charlotte’s LYNX Blue line was announced by Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff on October 16.
Initially the promoters for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system envisioned an under ground transit tunnel through downtown Dallas. In fact, they envisioned two routes; one underground and one on a separate transit-way. That's about as separate as it gets. Until they looked at the price tag! They decided that a street level transit way, partially dedicated to light rail, was more practicable. And affordable!
Initially the promotors of DART's rail program wanted to use heavy rail, e.g. Atlanta's MARTA, until they found out that the cost would be substantially greater than light rail. When they realized that it would shave just 2.5 minutes off the running time from Forest Lane to downtown Dallas, a distance of approximately 10.5 miles, they decided on the light rail because it was affordable.
Two or three years ago DART commissioned a highly regarded economics professor at the University of North Texas to evaluate the impact of DART's light rail on economic development around the light rail stations. He was able to point to the development of apartments and retail shops at Mockingbird Station and apartments in downtown Plano. That's just two stations, although additional apartments are being built along the Green line near Southwestern Medical Center.
What he did not say is that the most impressive developments in the Dallas area have taken place far from the light rail stations, i.e. Uptown Dallas, Addison, Los Colinas, etc. How do I know? I lived in Uptown for five years. I could walk downtown quicker than back track on a bus to catch the light rail at City Place. Furthermore, he overlooked the fact that in Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, etc. there has been significant development, due in large part to the growth of Texas, and none of these communities have light rail.
Texas has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 25 years. People need places to live, work, shop, etc. And developers have responded with apartments, townhouses, retail outlets, etc. irrespective of whether there is any light rail or for that matter public transport nearby. These cities are served by fairly decent bus systems, although Austin has an inefficient commuter rail service. Given that only three to five per cent of Texans use public transport, they are more than adequate. And a significant percentage of them don't have any alternative.
What is missing in these discussions is how to pay for light rail and commuter rail, other than to raid the federal treasury, which is heavily stressed.
Now the APTA announces that the 1st 3 quarters of this year that LRT ridership increased the most of all modes (others heavy rail & bus )
You are correct, Streak. Over all ridership has increased for the last 7 consecutive quarters. Light rail has the largest increase followed by heavy rail and then by bus. This could be the beginning of a trent toward more and more transit use.
Here is a link: http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/121210.aspx
John
Light rail that runs mainly in the street with lanes shared with auto traffic is no longer light rail but streetcars.
There may be locations where streetcars are still useful. But is a retrograde, a past technology, not a present or future one. Even cable cars have their use in San Francisco and horsecars in Douglass, Isle of Man. Portland apparently has a useful streetcar system, Toronto a modern one integrated with some light rail, Kenosha, New Orleans, and San Francisco are other examples. These are successful streetcar lines in modern conditions. Even though an old technology, a streetcar line still can handle more passengers past a given point than buses, even though mixed with other traffic. And it can integrate with Light Rail as does the E line in Boston and all of the Philadelphia subway-surface lines, I cannot subscribe to "Rails should NEVER be used in the street." I would rather say, "Avoid the use of rails in the street if possible."
I would point out that most of San Francisco's "light rail" routes run in a subway under Market St not on the surface.
The only route that runs on the surface on Market St is the F, which is using the historical fleet.
Thx IGN
The MUNI Metro is not pure light rail but a blend of light rail and streetcar, since when leaving the western portal of the Sunset and Twin Peaks tunnels, the Breda light rail cars behave like normal streetcars, ditto line "T" on Third Avenue (Third Street?). This is also true of Boston's E line from Brigham Circle to Heath Street.
Dave,
I don't disagree with you that running streetcars is a retrograde technology. Take the same vehicles off the streets and they are modern technology.
But it seems to me that simply putting rubber tires on a vehicle and setting that vehicle down on a street is not really different.
And it also seems to me that we need to re think our public transit philosophy to get away from the danger of mixed private vehicles and public transit on streets. I know we won't really do that because politically the money is just not available to do it. However, we should be conscious of that when we do make improvements to our transit system.
For example, several years ago New Jersey Transit installed the Riverline, a light rail line from Trenton to Camden. For almost the whole length (except for a short section in Camden) the line has its own right of way. At Trenton Transit Center (railroad station) the tracks are far beneath street level. However, instead of putting the Riverline tracks close to them the tracks were brought up to the level of the street. To get to TTC or a bus stop to down town it is necessary to cross South Clinton Avenue, a busy street. Originally the bus stop to go out to the Hamilton suburbs was at the Riverline station; however it was moved forcing people who want to use it to cross another busy street. Thus, while the Riverline station might have been constructed to avoid the risk of street crossings instead the risk of being hit by a car was increased by the Riverline. That's what I call retrograde.
I did not mean to imply that retrograde technology is obsolete or bad technology. I am a member of the Market Street Railway Association and support the F line and future E line fully. Streetcars are still useful and even mixed with autos can handle more people past a point than buses and with heavy use are more economical to operate on a per passenger basis. Of course I have also seen a lot of new light rail stations poorly designed from a pasenger interchange with bus and leaving or entering the station highway safety factor . I could name some examples but why bother.
Since most transfer points at intermediate points are at right angles to each other, an elevated crosswalk or a bus turnaround would be required to eliminate the need for passengers to cross the street to make connections.
daveklepper Of course I have also seen a lot of new light rail stations poorly designed from a pasenger interchange with bus and leaving or entering the station highway safety factor . I could name some examples but why bother.
I'm sure you have seen light rail stations poorly designed from a passenger interchange with bus lines, Dave. In the example I describe the light rail tracks might have run right into the Trenton Transit Center along side the other tracks. That would have made a more convenient and much safer connection to New Jersey Transit, Septa and Amtrak trains.
Another, even worse, example is the Bloomfield Avenue station of the Newark Lightrail. This station has two tracks and side platforms. When it was built each platform had two stairways, one to the inbound side of Bloomfield Avenue and one to the outbound side. At some point one stairway was closed off. This means that trains in each direction can only be reached from one side of the street; if you are on the wrong side of the street you must cross it. Also, if, God forbid, you are waiting on the platform and there is some threat between you and the stairway you have no place to which to retreat. In this case New Jersey Transit has created a risk in their stations that was not there before NJT took over. I can only wonder why.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.