Light Rail Boom

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Chef

One of the advantages of LRT is low operating cost. The day to day operating costs per passenger for the blue line in Minneapolis are significantly lower than Metro Transit's bus system.

Does anyone have and insider stats on these numbers?

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Frequency is a major issue in transit. I find it tiresome to wait 15 minutes. The thought of having to pre-plan all my trips and wait 30 minutes or an hour makes transit unattractive. I'm pro-transit, so good luck getting anyone who isn't keen on transit to change their minds when service is infrequent. These discussions sometimes forget this competitive need in order to attract people out of their cars by choice. Transit will never be attractive if its not competitive.

I don't have all the answers, but many transit geeks and professional planners - people who really do have a vested interest in getting more people out of their cars - are increasingly looking at BRT for lower capital costs, which means more lines can be built, and for the more frequent service they can provide at lower costs according to the transit planners I've listened to.

However those BRT lines will be designed with a hierarchy on which corridors need high frequency and ridership and are worth the investment upgrade. Goes back to smart fiscal and operational planning for successful transit network building.

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

BRT also is highly scalable. Like Light Rail, its not intended to be a heavy rail network. But BRT's lower upstart costs and maintenance capital costs make it easier should heavy rail be a need in the future if a city begins to seriously develop in urban fashion.

Agreed, but depending on other factors such as travel density and passenger trip lengths. A corridor with a high density of short-hops ons and offs can get by with a BRT or basic LRT system, corridors with longer travel patterns and densities will need the capacity for a longer trip length where either the footprint of the busway increases (to enable by-pass lanes for longer distance commuter buses to run on the corridor) or longer length trains with more grade separation.

I was simply responding to a statement that LRT is more affordable to operate since it theoretically can operate without a driver, I didn't bring this topic up. Like you, I'm baffled why it matters since virtually all light rail systems require a driver. Its a moot point. Capital costs matter a great deal as well. You can get a lot more service for a lot less money with BRT.

Operations costs matter just as much or more so because it is a long term cost that agencies have to live with. So we are in agreement there.

I think LRT makes sense for many environments and is a great technology, but BRT is increasingly attractive and shouldn't be thought of as second rate. In fact, for certain environments its far more attractive...I just think BRT makes more sense for relatively low density cities, or even medium density cities that have few people with a transit ridership mindset. Its unlikely for BRT to be saturated unless we're talking about New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.

My comments mostly apply to cities like Buffalo, Charlotte, Nashville, Cleveland, or even on a larger scale Minneapolis. Those frequency numbers from Minneapolis sound pretty bad.

As transit supporters, isn't our goal to get people to want to get out of their cars? You do this by providing frequent service, not focus so much on the form. Just the comparison with LYNX to HealthLine is dramatic in terms of cost and frequency. Half the price for significantly more frequency in service is amazing. If we are going to foster people's desires to get out of the car, and if transit is to compete with the car the service has to be worth using.

Waiting 30 minutes for a train when you can drive somewhere in 10 minutes isn't competitive. BRT may provide a way to do it more cheaply and get more service and lines where they need to go than LRT in certain environments.

Nashville, my old home, is the next city that has approved a BRT line to be built. They are banking on a 7 mile central city circulation system to provide a city without a transit culture to have real options. Nashville kind of did things backwards, they opened a 30+ mile heavy commuter rail system in 2006 without a central city circulation system, and only 3-4k riders a day bother using it when there is so much more potential. I'm interested in seeing how this compares with service in Salt Lake, Minneapolis, and Charlotte. It'll be a great experiment to see which systems foster better ridership and service levels in the coming decade.

However adding more frequent service for the sake of more frequent service costs money on the one hand you want to push BRT to be more than upgrade bus, however most agencies can barely afford the upgraded bus. There's a level of careful planning and strategy that I think we both agree upon is needed for any major investment in transit.

As for Euclid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_...28Cleveland%29
Euclid Corridor is historically one of Cleveland's major arterials and the reinvestment was inevitable it also includes streetscape improvements along the way.

I would agree on the instance of Nashville doing it backwards that they didn't think it through of using the rail line as part of a system and how the line could be a spine serving key hubs between transit services which can then be location for future development because of all of this activity. Austin is another city that took the Commuter Rail but missing Downtown circulator approach. Where some look it as one line instead of a coordinated network.

The other ways to get people out of their car; whatever the mode as I always thought of this when I was a Service Councilmember for Metro's Westside/Central district for 7 years.

• Dependable (on-time reliability)
• Clean
• Safe
• Informative (if a service runs every 60 minutes, let passengers know so they can do other things with their time, such as if they are at a stop that allows this like Grocery Shopping, Dry cleaning other small errands)
• Fast (Fast can mean high speeds or fewer stops or timed transfer connections)
• Parking Scarcity (if the location transit serving has limited parking or high parking costs, folks will ride transit)

Also transit professional Vulkan Vuchic also notes the importance of this hierarchy with this publication;

Vuchic, Vukan. Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics. New York, NY: Wiley, 2005. ISBN: 9780471632658.

[Dr Nevergold]

The important thing to remember is that BRT, like LRT, is very diverse in its implementation. What I am referring to is true BRT, which only a handful of systems nationwide are. I've seen BRT labelled as such when I just shake my head, because some "BRT" services are just regular bus service with maybe an express design. Light rail has many forms: trams or streetcars all the way up to mostly grade separated with rights of way such as Calgary's C-Train, with relatively heavier vehicles. Its hard to paint things as black or white.

The HealthLine in Cleveland is BRT done correctly, it feels professional grade when you stand up on the platforms and enter the vehicle at floor level from the platform, you realize this isn't 'just a bus'. The articulated length allows for up to 100 people per bus (I think that's the capacity, may have to check), which is plenty for a line carrying 15,000 a day. Before I experienced the HealthLine, I was much like other people in thinking BRT was really a second rate, not worthwhile investment.

In terms of Nashville, a city I grew up near and spent years in, I hope they get the BRT system right there. Considering the corridor they are implementing it on, its a proper and necessary plan. However, the Koch brothers got involved and tried to get the BRT killed. Now they are having to rework the BRT and use fewer dedicated lanes outside the central core to match what the state is forcing the local government to do. At least the state came to an agreement to allow it to go forward instead of following the radical anti-transit agenda of the Koch brothers. Its a case more transit planners need to be aware of, since its a gross over-reach of right wing politics in an environment they have no business getting involved in.

I've even made pretend maps of Nashville before, with what a $1 billion BRT investment would look like:



If you spent $1-2 billion in BRT for the city, you'd get almost 50 miles worth of good, quality, frequent transit services in the most urban corridors. Each of these choices reflects major business, retail, and housing hubs. This would also allow traditional buses the ability to run in a more circular pattern around Nashville's built form, complimenting the entire region. This theoretical project would compliment the existing built form by terraforming existing city streets with desperately needed updates and upgrades. Just the new concrete, pavement, and landscaped look would improve the city immensely even for those who don't use transit.

FYI, if you want to know why I didn't draw a line northwest, the city pushes against rugged Appalachian foothills in the northwest region, its very low population density. The river to the west also forms a very depopulated region along its industrial and floodplain region. If you built this map with light rail, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd be talking about a $10 billion investment for a city that wouldn't have ridership to support it.

This is the type of environment that BRT makes the most sense: making an auto-centric city transit friendly, with a full compatible circulation system and minimizes transfers. You could get virtually anywhere in the region with 2-3 transfers at most, over a vast area.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by electricron

A very valid point. But, and here's my major disagreement, most transit agencies don't attribritary set headways at hourly, 30, 15, or 5 minutes; actual ridership does. They have to hold public meetings to change headways, change routes, add routes, and eliminate routes, and they always have the ridership data on paper to back up their propose changes - always !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the bus route to even exist, it has to have a certain number of riders. There's a data point for shorter headways, size of bus to use, etc. There's a systemic set of data points for every decision at every agency. Each bus route and each train line is evaluated individually. Different agencies may have different data decision numbers, but their decision points are based upon how wealthy that agency is. No doubt operating trains means there is less money available to operate buses. There's rarely a system wide headway, even in agencies without train services. There will be some extremely busy bus routes with shorter headways than other, less busy, bus routes.
Therefore, those that are expecting short headways on every bus route are being unrealistic and too demanding. We live in the real world, we must adapt to actual conditions. No one likes seeing empty buses running anywhere at anytime. It's better to have longer headways than have no bus at all on that route.

There lies the check and balance of needing more service with the costs that service, no matter the mode it is in.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

I've even made pretend maps of Nashville before, with what a $1 billion BRT investment would look like:



If you spent $1-2 billion in BRT for the city, you'd get almost 50 miles worth of good, quality, frequent transit services in the most urban corridors. Each of these choices reflects major business, retail, and housing hubs. This would also allow traditional buses the ability to run in a more circular pattern around Nashville's built form, complimenting the entire region. This theoretical project would compliment the existing built form by terraforming existing city streets with desperately needed updates and upgrades. Just the new concrete, pavement, and landscaped look would improve the city immensely even for those who don't use transit.

FYI, if you want to know why I didn't draw a line northwest, the city pushes against rugged Appalachian foothills in the northwest region, its very low population density. The river to the west also forms a very depopulated region along its industrial and floodplain region. If you built this map with light rail, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd be talking about a $10 billion investment for a city that wouldn't have ridership to support it.

This is the type of environment that BRT makes the most sense: making an auto-centric city transit friendly, with a full compatible circulation system and minimizes transfers. You could get virtually anywhere in the region with 2-3 transfers at most, over a vast area.

That map reminds me of a city in the world known for its integrated bus based transportation network, Curitiba.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

The important thing to remember is that BRT, like LRT, is very diverse in its implementation. What I am referring to is true BRT, which only a handful of systems nationwide are. I've seen BRT labelled as such when I just shake my head, because some "BRT" services are just regular bus service with maybe an express design. Light rail has many forms: trams or streetcars all the way up to mostly grade separated with rights of way such as Calgary's C-Train, with relatively heavier vehicles. Its hard to paint things as black or white.

The HealthLine in Cleveland is BRT done correctly, it feels professional grade when you stand up on the platforms and enter the vehicle at floor level from the platform, you realize this isn't 'just a bus'. The articulated length allows for up to 100 people per bus (I think that's the capacity, may have to check), which is plenty for a line carrying 15,000 a day. Before I experienced the HealthLine, I was much like other people in thinking BRT was really a second rate, not worthwhile investment.

In terms of Nashville, a city I grew up near and spent years in, I hope they get the BRT system right there. Considering the corridor they are implementing it on, its a proper and necessary plan. However, the Koch brothers got involved and tried to get the BRT killed. Now they are having to rework the BRT and use fewer dedicated lanes outside the central core to match what the state is forcing the local government to do. At least the state came to an agreement to allow it to go forward instead of following the radical anti-transit agenda of the Koch brothers. Its a case more transit planners need to be aware of, since its a gross over-reach of right wing politics in an environment they have no business getting involved in.

I've even made pretend maps of Nashville before, with what a $1 billion BRT investment would look like:



If you spent $1-2 billion in BRT for the city, you'd get almost 50 miles worth of good, quality, frequent transit services in the most urban corridors. Each of these choices reflects major business, retail, and housing hubs. This would also allow traditional buses the ability to run in a more circular pattern around Nashville's built form, complimenting the entire region. This theoretical project would compliment the existing built form by terraforming existing city streets with desperately needed updates and upgrades. Just the new concrete, pavement, and landscaped look would improve the city immensely even for those who don't use transit.

FYI, if you want to know why I didn't draw a line northwest, the city pushes against rugged Appalachian foothills in the northwest region, its very low population density. The river to the west also forms a very depopulated region along its industrial and floodplain region. If you built this map with light rail, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd be talking about a $10 billion investment for a city that wouldn't have ridership to support it.

This is the type of environment that BRT makes the most sense: making an auto-centric city transit friendly, with a full compatible circulation system and minimizes transfers. You could get virtually anywhere in the region with 2-3 transfers at most, over a vast area.

After viewing the success of the Cleveland BRT on Euclid Ave, Pittsburgh is likely to build one as well between the two huge employment centers of downtown and Oakland, the hospital/university/cultural center of the city 3 miles away. Very similar to Downtown --> University Circle in Cleveland.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Does anyone have and insider stats on these numbers?

From the Star Tribune:

The Hiawatha Line costs about 51 cents per passenger mile to operate, while Metro Transit buses cost about 88 cents, according to the National Transit Database (NTD), a division of the Federal Transit Administration.
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/123722719.html

Also it is worth noting that on weekdays the Blue Line runs every ten minutes for most of the day, the headways posted were for close to midnight.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Chef

From the Star Tribune:



Also it is worth noting that on weekdays the Blue Line runs every ten minutes for most of the day, the headways posterd were for close to midnight.

I suppose I'd ask does the 88 cents to 51 cents per mile include the entire bus system of Minneapolis and its entire budget vs the one LRT line? That may not be a very proportional comparison. A matter of fact, it may make the comparison irrelevant if that's the case. Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the Cleveland HealthLine's costs per mile to the Hiawatha line? Whatever the case, these are stats I'd love to study further when time permits. An individual newspaper clip certainly doesn't do such a complicated topic justice. If it is true that a BRT is always more expensive per mile to operate, I suppose the trade off will generally be considerably higher capital costs of LRT vs higher operational costs of BRT. BUT, I don't have enough data to know this is true.

Again, I come from the perspective of wanting more transit and more frequency so its usable. I don't care whether its BRT, LRT, subway, commuter, or other forms of transport as long as they make sense for the community they serve. I do think LRT has been the flavor of the week for quite some time now, with systems that aren't really suitable being built in areas that could have had several times more transit opportunities if they had explored other options. Nashville is one of these cities, I would wager that each of those theoretical lines would have 5k-15k riders a day, depending on the corridor. BRT is much more suitable for making the city less auto centric. This wouldn't be true in a city like Toronto or Berlin, both cities with massive light rail technology that is needed and used heavily.

^^In regards to Pittsburgh, its about time something happens for the east end of the city. Since LRT is so expensive and hard to approve, BRT would make sense to connect Oakland and South Side if possible.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

Again, I come from the perspective of wanting more transit and more frequency so its usable. I don't care whether its BRT, LRT, subway, commuter, or other forms of transport as long as they make sense for the community they serve. I do think LRT has been the flavor of the week for quite some time now, with systems that aren't really suitable being built in areas that could have had several times more transit opportunities if they had explored other options. Nashville is one of these cities, I would wager that each of those theoretical lines would have 5k-15k riders a day, depending on the corridor.

First of all, you're not agnostic as you claim--for starters, you're agitating for BRT in a thread that is specifically about LRT. You have an agenda. You ask for numbers, you are given numbers you don't like, and you just stick to your agenda. Fine--but don't pretend you don't have a BRT bee in your bonnet.

Second, why do you think you would get between 5,000 and 15,000 riders each day on each of five different theoretical Nashville BRT lines--in a city where only 6,567 people commute by public transit daily?

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Dr Nevergold

I suppose I'd ask does the 88 cents to 51 cents per mile include the entire bus system of Minneapolis and its entire budget vs the one LRT line?

Yes, but that one line also carries 13% of Metro Transit's total passenger volume.

[Hatman]

I thought I would add my two cents to this discussion by mentioning my own local LRT system in Salt Lake City. It hasn't got a lot of attention on this thread which I think is kind of sad, because IMO Utah Transit Authority's TRAX LRT is a perfect example of LRT done right.

The Red, Blue, and Green Lines are LRT; The purple line is FrontRunner Commuter Rail, and the silver line is the S-Line streetcar



The reason I say TRAX is done right is that it utilizes former railroad right-of-ways as much as possible. All three lines south of Ballpark station (13th south) run on exclusive right-of-ways and cruise at 55 miles per hour (Edit - the last mile of the Green line reverts to street running). North of Ballpark station, all three lines use street-running to reach their destinations (Airport, Intermodal Hub, and University of Utah). This minimizes the amount of time trains can be stopped by traffic.


UTA uses two types of cars. Pictured is a Siemens 100 series on the Blue line. The other two lines use S70 low-floor cars

Salt Lake City is known for its wide streets and huge blocks. This is generally bad for pedestrians, but conversely it does allow for plenty of space to put LRT in the street, and to run 4-car trains during peak hours.



Connections to other modes is also very good. For example, TRAX has cross-platform connections to FrontRunner commuter rail at both Salt Lake Central Station and Murray Central Station - and at North Temple station a connection via escalator/elevator/stairs.


Salt Lake Central Station with TRAX and FrontRunner. Also connections to Amtrak and Greyhound.


North Temple Bridge, opened in April, 2013

TRAX will celebrate 15 years of service this December (opened in 1999, in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympics). Already it has been expanded 7 times to a total system length of 45 miles and 50 stations. Trax runs every day at 15 minute headways on weekdays - 20 minutes on weekends. Last year, the Average Weekday Boardings was 68,100.

UTA estimates that per passenger mile, LRT costs between $0.02 and $0.05, while regular buses cost between $0.17 and $0.37 - assuming the vehicle is full.
http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Final...y_9Oct2013.pdf

Future plans include operating a fourth line on existing tracks between the University and the Airport (to be called the Black Line), increasing hours of service, and eventually extending the Blue line, which currently ends in Draper, an additional 20-some-odd miles south to Provo. However, before that happens, UTA plans on building a network of BRT routes to complement the current TRAX configuration.

The key to rapid transit, I believe, is using the available right-of-way to its maximum potential. If you have an old railroad grade that goes in the general direction of commuters, use LRT, even if that means extensive streetcar-like sections downtown. If your right-of-way is a street, perhaps BRT is best, even though the operating costs are 7 times as much.
Each city and each route has its own unique factors to consider, but I think the best way to approach the question of mode is to evaluate the right-of-way first.

[Dr Nevergold]

Originally Posted by Chef

Yes, but that one line also carries 13% of Metro Transit's total passenger volume.

As a backbone of the system that certainly makes sense. The light rail system has immensely helped the region.

[M II A II R II K]

Austin Wants to Build a Light Rail-Streetcar Hybrid

Read More: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...hybrid/371986/

.....

Last month, Austinites got a first look at Austin Urban Rail, the light-rail project at the heart of a high-capacity transit vision for Central Texas. The 9.5-mile track extends from East Riverside Drive north over Lady Bird Lake (via a new, to-be-constructed bridge) through east downtown to Highland Mall north of the city.

- The vehicles that Austin will get are something new, according to Kyle Keahey, vice president for HNTB and urban rail project lead. "Light-rail manufacturers want to improve their vehicles to compete in the streetcar arena," Keahey says.

- Austin's urban-rail cars will be designed to accommodate the tighter turning radii of a streetcar as well as the higher speeds of light rail. Keahey, who headed up the Project Connect effort responsible for the plan, says that the hybrid characteristic is crucial to "address some of the congestion elements that are anathema to Austin."

- In Austin's east downtown, traffic is choked by congestion along I-35. Much of this traffic stems from short trips, Keahey says. The streetcar-esque light-rail design means that the urban-rail system can navigate tighter right-of-way turns and more stops through east downtown. The vehicles can be coupled together like light-rail cars, but they could also operate in mixed-flow traffic, if necessary.

- Many more in Central Texas are questioning the wisdom of building a light-rail line along the Highland–East Riverside sub-corridor in east downtown Austin instead of the Guadalupe–North Lamar sub-corridor in west downtown Austin. Cheyenne Krause, public-information specialist with the Austin Transportation Department, says that many trips originating in west downtown Austin, in particular from the West Campus neighborhood, proceed east–west, not north–south. Keahey says that east of downtown, Austin can build light rail that serves the place where growth will be highest in future years.

- The planners expect approximately half of the urban rail's costs to be paid by federal dollars. The remaining funding will come in the form of obligation bonds. In August, Austin's City Council will shape the bond language for a November election. While voters will be deciding primarily on what sort of urban rail they want for their city, they'll also be deciding what sort of test we can expect for this hybrid light rail model.

.....

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I thought I would add my two cents to this discussion by mentioning my own local LRT system in Salt Lake City. It hasn't got a lot of attention on this thread which I think is kind of sad, because IMO Utah Transit Authority's TRAX LRT is a perfect example of LRT done right.


The reason I say TRAX is done right is that it utilizes former railroad right-of-ways as much as possible. All three lines south of Ballpark station (13th south) run on exclusive right-of-ways and cruise at 55 miles per hour (Edit - the last mile of the Green line reverts to street running). North of Ballpark station, all three lines use street-running to reach their destinations (Airport, Intermodal Hub, and University of Utah). This minimizes the amount of time trains can be stopped by traffic.


Future plans include operating a fourth line on existing tracks between the University and the Airport (to be called the Black Line), increasing hours of service, and eventually extending the Blue line, which currently ends in Draper, an additional 20-some-odd miles south to Provo. However, before that happens, UTA plans on building a network of BRT routes to complement the current TRAX configuration.

The key to rapid transit, I believe, is using the available right-of-way to its maximum potential. If you have an old railroad grade that goes in the general direction of commuters, use LRT, even if that means extensive streetcar-like sections downtown. If your right-of-way is a street, perhaps BRT is best, even though the operating costs are 7 times as much.
Each city and each route has its own unique factors to consider, but I think the best way to approach the question of mode is to evaluate the right-of-way first.

As a Denverite, it is a bit hard for me to admit that the SLC system is the best LRT/commuter rail system in the US built since WWII. Compared to the Denver system, which in and of itself is one of the better of the current systems, the SLC system has far better connections through downtown than the Denver Union Station complex provides. If a user does not go downtown, or from downtown to DIA (in 2016) the entire system is fairly useless.

I believe that the power brokers of SLC seemed to have worked together better for the rider than Denver's power brokers. Perhaps not having an individual multibillionaire player eager to recoup his investment in SLC at the expense of the future had something to do with it.

Regardless, Denver had the opportunity to make a word class LRT, and, commuter rail system the being built will be C on worldwide level.

For the record: the SLC system is a B- on a world scale. Mind boggling when one considers how many Chinese systems have been built over the last 20 years, and, realizes that the SLC system RANKS this high! This merits a strong "Congratulations!"

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

As a Denverite, it is a bit hard for me to admit that the SLC system is the best LRT/commuter rail system in the US built since WWII. Compared to the Denver system, which in and of itself is one of the better of the current systems, the SLC system has far better connections through downtown than the Denver Union Station complex provides. If a user does not go downtown, or from downtown to DIA (in 2016) the entire system is fairly useless.

I wouldn't feel too bad, Wizened. Salt Lake City is much smaller and more constrained geographically than Denver is (Mountains on the east, The Great Salt Lake on the west, and nothing in betwen but corridors ripe for transit planners to pick). Denver's system(s) still has (have) many, many enviable qualities that I admire. Your union station makeover, for instance, makes me very jealous. And yes I've read your opinions on it. I'm still jealous.

On a different note, Newsweek recently did a story on Light Rail and why there isn't more of it in the USA:

America’s Invisible Trolley System

In 1995, a nonprofit transit advocacy group in New York, the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association (BHRA), decided to construct a light rail service connecting the underserviced neighborhood of Red Hook to downtown Brooklyn. After obtaining permission and funding through the city in 2000, the group laid down a half-mile of track. But a few years later, in 2003, New York City’s Department of Transportation revoked the group’s construction permit and ripped up its tracks without providing the BHRA with any explanation.

The next year, however, the city received almost $300,000 in federal money—more than it had invested in the BHRA’s trolley—to study whether it was feasible to build essentially the same line. It sat on the money for years before eventually spending only a small portion of it to conclude such a project would be too expensive. Proponents of the Red Hook trolley were confused and angry. “There is an unquantifiable resistance to electric-powered street transit in New York,” says Ray Howell, a BHRA member.

It’s not just New York. Despite the environmental benefits of mass transportation—which saves 37 million metric tons of carbon and 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year (about 3 percent of total U.S. motor gasoline consumption)—this resistance exists in cities pursuing light rail projects across the country.

Article continues at:
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/06/13/a...em-253455.html

There are some very good points on the economic benefits of rail transportation, as well as the demands for public transportation as a whole. However, I don't think the issue is as grim as the article portrays... Invisible is probably not the right word for it - in certain cities at least. This just shows that people are talking about rail transit and are including it in their city plans and wish-lists; and that's the first step.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by Hatman

There are some very good points on the economic benefits of rail transportation, as well as the demands for public transportation as a whole. However, I don't think the issue is as grim as the article portrays... Invisible is probably not the right word for it - in certain cities at least. This just shows that people are talking about rail transit and are including it in their city plans and wish-lists; and that's the first step.

I am becoming more convinced the lag factor between when steel rail public transportation systems are considered, and, when such systems are built is part of the problem why so many of our post WWII built rail systems "stink." By the time proposals are drawn up, voted on by the people, environmental statements are made, the public hearing process is completed, financing is acquired, and, construction begins, the route planning and design has been frozen in a 20 year old mind set. In a era of very rapid change in employment patterns, demographics, wealth, and, government, 20 years is a huge length of time.

For example, for a system first considered as a possibility in 1980, thinkers involved received college educations from texts written in the 70s. Take the 20 year "incubation" span, before construction begins, and, we are talking about 30 years lag time. Add a 10 to 15 year build out for larger systems, and we are talking about 40 to 45 years between consideration and implementation.

For those of us outside the bureaucracies involved in such planning and construction, US steel rail transit being built now naturally is obsolete. For those involved, the time period covered more than a generation of frustrating slow progress to produce an end result they might have learned to loath (we all learn as we go...)

[fflint]

An interesting and relevant blurb from an article on Minneapolis-St. Paul's new 11-mile Green Line, which opens Saturday: when considering how to beef up transit service on the main corridor between the two downtowns, "trains [were] chosen over buses because they would draw more riders, cost little more to operate and were expandable."

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

As a Denverite, it is a bit hard for me to admit that the SLC system is the best LRT/commuter rail system in the US built since WWII. Compared to the Denver system, which in and of itself is one of the better of the current systems, the SLC system has far better connections through downtown than the Denver Union Station complex provides. If a user does not go downtown, or from downtown to DIA (in 2016) the entire system is fairly useless.

I believe that the power brokers of SLC seemed to have worked together better for the rider than Denver's power brokers. Perhaps not having an individual multibillionaire player eager to recoup his investment in SLC at the expense of the future had something to do with it.

Regardless, Denver had the opportunity to make a word class LRT, and, commuter rail system the being built will be C on worldwide level.

For the record: the SLC system is a B- on a world scale. Mind boggling when one considers how many Chinese systems have been built over the last 20 years, and, realizes that the SLC system RANKS this high! This merits a strong "Congratulations!"

We aren't the best system, but for our city and for our size, we do actually have the best rail in the nation... By far (someone fact check me? ) We also have a plan far in to the future for more nice transit options that will unfuck our valley except in our newest development in which it is illegal /highly unrecommended to grow vegetables.

The thing about the geographical constrain here is that we are running out of space and we are either going to spill out in to farther counties that would mean in excess of 60 mile commutes or we will go up, everywhere.

I also think that while Denver's commuter rail system feels more metropolitan, SLC is truly designed for long haul commutes and will do the best job efficiently but intelligently spacing stops. Some of your lines appeared to have close stops that didn't seem very commuter rail like at all. 3 in one suburb?

I also hate your airport. Like, it's a good airport, but why is it so far away? The SLC airport is like a 15 minute drive or 20 minute street running light rail trip away. Why is it so far out? I think it was a good decision on RTD's part to use commuter rail. I find it funny how almost everything north, northeast, and northwest is commuter while everything south is light rail. It's like you guys had an epiphany of commuter trains whirling past your suburbs.

I think every system is different and I guess I may not have full context on your suburbs and fastracks plan. I like the future you guys have laid out for your admittedly cooler city. I like union station so much that I wish they would just copy it here or something because we have a shitty central station that looks sad and disorganized, and is a copper clad mess that is strangely neohistorical. You guys win that round by far, every time. Good luck with fastracks!

[M II A II R II K]

Citizen panel to draft light-rail growth plan

Read More: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...rail/13957029/

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton wants to triple Metro light rail's mileage over the next 30 years. But to do that, the city would likely need to go back to voters to fund it. So Phoenix leaders on Tuesday announced that they have formed a citizen committee to draft light-rail expansions and street and bus improvements so they can bring it to voters next year.

- Light rail has reached its 2020 ridership goal of 48,000 people a day, roughly 22,000 more than expected during the system's fifth year. Proponents say the rail has generated about $7 billion in economic investment and offers transportation options for people without personal transportation. --- "It's definitely about economic development, it definitely is about viability for this city ... but it is also about catching life's appointments," Councilman Daniel Valenzuela said. "In many neighborhoods, less than half of the people in those neighborhoods own a vehicle."

.....

[Cirrus]

Dallas Orange Line extension to DFW opens today


Dart Daily