Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama
A comparable BRT system would be almost as expensive as a train with higher operating costs.
Light rail is such a broad category. It includes lines and systems which are similar to streetcars, ones which are similar to metros, and everything in between. Instead of building obligatory grade-separated heavy rail metro with third rail for the entirely of a corridor, you can run trains that have overhead wires and can cross roads and walkways at grade.
Look at the Seattle East Link. It's almost entirely elevated or in a tunnel and reaches the the cores of Seattle and Bellevue with underground stations, but there are a few parts of the line that go through industrial areas along side streets and a couple stations that don't have a huge capacity requirement. LRT saves money over HRT, which is what that line would have been otherwise. BRT would be ridiculous in that alignment. You aren't going to dig miles of tunnel and build several subway stations for buses. Seattle already tried that.
Even in Houston where the Metro Red Line isn't grade separated and runs in the street, it is probably better than what it used to be like. The buses that used to run on Main caused traffic congestion because there were too many of them and they stopped in the outer lane. To improve the situation with buses would just involve tearing up the street and building something almost exactly like the light rail which is there now except without rails. If you didn't want the diesel buses they would have to be electric and need a charging depot, or you could have catenary. At least the longer trains have more capacity so there are fewer of them blocking intersections and because they run on tracks they ride smoother and make significantly less sound.
|
I know light rail is a broad category. I use it as short-hand for urban, in-street non-grade separated rail, and I always assume others do too, so that's my bad. I do think however that the common freeway/railway alignments alternatives, even when grade-separated, are stupid for a different set of reasons. But yeah, when I criticize light rail, I'm thinking Portland Yellow Line, Minneapolis Green Line, Phoenix light rail, etc.
In any case, yes there are places where it's done better than others, in that it comes much closer to metro standards. My beef is with those where they just plop it down into a street and that buses could do just as well. Comparable BRT systems don't cost nearly as much as LRT systems cost, and they're much easier to replace with real rapid transit one day.
If we're using specific examples, a Vancouver suburb wants to replace a bus line with an LRT line right now. The projected time saving is ONE minute off the current bus route, that doesn't even have its own lanes or anything. At a cost of $2 billion. I'm sure the LRT is an improvement in Houston, but it's not even close to the improvement a metro would be. Plus, shifting buses to inner lanes could be done too, and "not building rails" saves a ton of money.
Either way, my argument's less about buses this time and more compared to metros. In-street urban light rail is significantly slower than grade-separated metros, so no, I don't think it fills its role at all. It might fill its role as the primary spine of the transit network, but that's a job that a real metro could do so much better, and though it's more expensive, you'll get much more value for your money.
Sorry, I know that was all over the place, but I'm exhausted. If this discussion continues I hope to give you a much more coherent response tomorrow
