HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4821  
Old Posted Today, 12:21 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,259
Well I hope Metro looks into elevated HRT lines. Not for downtown or the mid city area but for anything south of the 10, east of the river and in the valley (only needs 1 or 2 HRT lines). I feel this is a better solution than slapping us with LRT that is sluggish and subways in low density areas. The system could be like the Bart. Comes out of the ground and is elevated in low density areas but goes under in the high density areas. Downtown, the Central/Century city and Westside need nothing but subways at this point in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4822  
Old Posted Today, 1:55 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

As Illithid Dude already mentioned, the turnback facility being constructed as part of the Purple Line extension will allow for 4-minute headways on both the Purple and Red Lines--the interlined trunk having trains come every 2 minutes. Hell, if it wasn't for the interlining, you could have 2-minute headways because the full grade-separation allows it.

So HRT has a maximum capacity of 54,180 riders per hour (over 8x that of LRT). For 4-minute headways, it's 27,090 riders per hour.
Very true, but that doesn't necessarily give the "win" to HRT. With 4 minute headways HRT is still less cost effective than LRT (4x the capacity for 5x the price), it isn't until you reach 2 minute headways that HRT starts to pull ahead. And even then I'm actually being a bit generous to HRT here, this is for crush loads which give it a more competitive edge. Crush capacity is 218 vs 301 riders per car instead of 164 vs 180 at full load (giving HRT 138% of LRT's capacity vs 109%). So the only way HRT is truly cost competitive is with 2 minute headways at crush capacities, and that opens the question of exactly how many routes in LA can put up those numbers on a regular basis.

This is very back-of-the-napkin style price considerations of course, there's a ton more math than just capital costs and capacity, but for the most part any potential new HRT line has to justify why ridership would make LRT unfeasible along that corridor. Yes LRT is 5x more cost effective than HRT, but you can't exactly put three LRT lines down Wilshire Blvd even if the math says it would save you a few billion dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4823  
Old Posted Today, 2:19 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Most heavy rail rapid transit trains are wider than light rail trains and so have a higher standing crush capacity. Also, the capacity of the same train in Asia has a higher crush capacity because Americans are big and fat.
Actually there are a number of heavy rail trains that are the same width as some Light Rail trains, like in some of the older Metro lines in Europe and Asia.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.