Heavy-Rail vs. Light-Rail

[Chicken In The Rough]

(I wish I could edit my headline... Heavy-Rail vs. Light-Rail)

The University of British Columbia recently published the results of a staudy in which they compare various forms of transportation to determine which was the most energy efficient. The study included a subway, bus system, streetcars, a Prius, and an SUV. They found the streetcar system to be the most efficient. It was cheaper to build and required less right-of-way acquisition.

Another reason I like streetcars is because the system is more easily expanded and adapted for heavier-use times. Here's the link to the article:

globeandmail.com: Rethinking the need for speed

Implications for a future streetcar system in OKC?

[metro]

(sp) Heavy.


Anyhow, I bet you see electric streetcars before we see anything else.

[CuatrodeMayo]

According to the study, Light.

Which I agree with.

[PLANSIT]

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what your ridership predictions indicate. Heavy allows for much greater capacity, but also requires ROW acquisition and usually far greater cost. Light is usually slower, having to deal with mixed traffic, but cost alone makes it more viable to cities getting into the rail transit business. There are only a few viable Heavy rail candidates in this country and I promise OKC is not one of them.

[Platemaker]

Streetcars for OKC!!!!! Though I think we could support one commuter line from Norman to Edmond through downtown.

[PLANSIT]

Remember: Commuter Rail =/= Heavy Rail

[Platemaker]

and also commuter rail =/= light rail

I took the commuter rail in Boston everyday when I lived there... it's definitely heavy.

[PLANSIT]

^I think you are confusing the two.

For the sake of argument: (important key differences are noted)

Definition: Heavy Rail

Heavy rail refers to traditional high platform subway and elevated rapid transit lines. Principal characteristics are operation over rights of way that are completely segregated from other uses, with the track placed in subway tunnels, on elevated structures, or on fenced surface rights of way, free of grade crossings with roads. Trains consist of anywhere from two to 12 cars, each with its own motors, and drawing power from a third rail (or in some cases from overhead wire). Boarding is from high platforms that are even with the floor level of the car, allowing large numbers of people to enter and leave rapidly. Before World War II, true heavy rail rapid transit systems existed only in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Since the war, new systems have been opened in Cleveland, Baltimore, Washington, the San Francisco-Oakland region, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Miami, plus Montreal and Toronto in Canada.

Heavy rail systems are extremely expensive to build due to the need to build tunnels, elevated structures, or other fully segregated rights of way and to accommodate more gentle curves and grades than are needed for light rail or streetcars. Given the high costs and the recent huge overruns of the Los Angeles rapid transit construction, funding of new heavy rail systems in the United States has become much less likely.

Definition: Commuter Rail

Commuter rail refers to passenger trains operated on main line railroad track to carry riders to and from work in city centers. The trains are normally made up of a locomotive and a number of passenger coaches. The coaches are dimensionally similar to intercity (Amtrak) coaches, but typically have higher density seating as the average ride is shorter. Commuter rail lines normally extend an average of 10 to 50 miles from their downtown terminus. In some cases service is only offered in rush hours. In other cities, service is operated throughout the day and evening and on weekends. Service rarely is offered more frequently than one train every 30 minutes and station spacing is typically measured in miles. Commuter rail systems (some electrified, some diesel hauled) are traditionally associated with older industrial cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, but in recent years new diesel powered commuter rail systems have been inaugurated in cities as diverse as Los Angeles and Burlington, Vermont, as traffic congestion has made auto commutes much more difficult. Many additional cities are planning commuter rail lines currently. Commuter rail lines can be relatively inexpensive to build as they normally operate over existing rail lines. However, typical planning challenges are negotiating use of the tracks with very busy freight rail operators and finding adequate funding both for construction and for operating subsidies.

Definition: Light Rail

Light Rail is essentially a modern evolution of the conventional trolley. The concept evolved largely in the German and Dutch speaking countries of Europe in the decades after World War II. In this era cities in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and France, among other countries, replaced their streetcars with buses, but in the German and Dutch-speaking countries the streetcars were retained and upgraded.

The Transit Research Board definition is: "Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level."

Key characteristics that distinguish light rail from streetcars are the following:

* Track is segregated from traffic wherever possible enabling higher operating speeds. Track is normally placed in reserved lanes on streets, in separate reservations on or next to streets, on private right of way similar to railroad lines, in subways, or on elevated structures. But the lines can still negotiate sharp curves and steep grades, similar to streetcar lines.

* Station spacing is usually further apart than on streetcar lines, again to allow increased operating speed. Stations are also typically more formally defined than on streetcar lines, often featuring shelters, seating, passenger information, and fare machines.

* Cars are normally longer and more spacious. Most today are articulated, meaning that they are made of several body sections connected by a flexible joint that allows lengthy cars to bend as they negotiate sharp curves and steep grades.

* Traditionally boarding of light rail cars, as with streetcars, is via steps from a low platform. However, several new light rail systems have opted for high platforms level with the car floor. The latest trend is to use cars specially built with the floor over some or all of the length of the car lowered to about 12 inches from the top of the rail, providing ADA compliant accessibility from relatively low platforms and speeding boarding and alighting for all passengers.

* Fares are often not collected on cars, to enable boarding through many doors without a staff member collecting fares at the door, and to speed loading. Modern systems typically use an honor system requiring purchase of a ticket before boarding the car and use fare inspectors to verify compliance randomly.

Light rail systems are normally less expensive to build than heavy rapid transit systems (see Heavy Rail) as they require less and simpler infrastructure. Light rail lines can carry more passengers through a given corridor than buses or streetcars, but fewer than a heavy rapid transit system.

Surviving trolley systems in cities such as Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco have been upgraded to light rail status in recent decades. Since 1981 many completely new light rail systems have been built in cities such as San Diego, Portland (OR), Buffalo, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Dallas to name just a few.

Source

[Urbanized]

Thanks for that link. Just to chime in, I have always heard of light rail and commuter rail as the most likely options for OKC in the immediate future. From what I have heard, the most likely sequence would be for OKC to see a light rail circulator system for the downtown and near-downtown area, with long-term plans for commuter rail to outlying commmunities. They are two very separate things, but need to be planned together as a system for optimal success.

[Platemaker]

Thanks for that link. In Boston they call it a 'commuter rail' Although the Northeast Corridor is electified by third rail and and opperate on segregated right of ways... whereas other lines on the system are diesel locomotives that operate on main line railroad leased or shared from the rail road.

Guess it is hard to put a deffinition on Boston's at least because it is a mixed bag.

[PLANSIT]

^Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the explanation. It seems like the term "commuter rail" has taken on its own definition within that area. Similar to what will probably happen in Denver as they build a few commuter lines. Everyone will probably just call it "light rail" because that's what they are used to calling any type of rail service, regardless of its true definition.

[CuatrodeMayo]

FWIW: Subways are Heavy Rail.

[Platemaker]

FWIW: Subways are Heavy Rail.

yes... but I'm talking about the MBTA Commuter Rail... the Purple line.

[Urbanized]

Is that the one that goes to places like Salem and Gloucester? I rode that a couple of times when I was in Boston a few years back. Seemed like a great way to commute. It was very obviously a different animal from the T, even leaving from a different station. If I remember right, the T dropped you off in the North End, right by what is now the TD Banknorth Garden, formerly the Fleet Center. The train left from a station that was basically in the basement of the Garden.

[Platemaker]

Yes... that is part of the Puple line... but the purple line is acutally eight lines with many more branches.

[metro]

Thanks for that link. Just to chime in, I have always heard of light rail and commuter rail as the most likely options for OKC in the immediate future. From what I have heard, the most likely sequence would be for OKC to see a light rail circulator system for the downtown and near-downtown area, with long-term plans for commuter rail to outlying commmunities. They are two very separate things, but need to be planned together as a system for optimal success.

This is already been in planning for quite some time with several groups here locally. Hopefully, we'll see some proposals come out middle of next year.

[Urbanized]

That's why I said "I have always heard..."

[Chicken In The Rough]

Toronto has a mix of all the rail options. They have an extensive network of commuter trains, a few heavily used subway lines, and hundreds of even more heavily-used streetcars. The streetcars are much slower than the other two, but they enable residents to live without a car which is great. Also, all three are well integrated with the bus system.

Toronto’s system is old and has not been well maintained over the years. It is also often the political weapon of choice for local politicians (i.e., blocking funding for police, libraries, and transit unless they get their pet project). Toronto’s streetcars are often filled over-capacity. During rush hour, you might have to wait for several to pass before finding one with room to board.

Also, Toronto makes the mistake of charging by the trip. This causes problems when transferring, and it discourages taking short trips. I would like to see them charge by time. Several cities do this. For example, your ticket may be good for unlimited use of the system for perhaps 2 hours.

[jbrown84]

By the definition above, it sounds like Commuter Rail would be cheaper than Light Rail.

[sgray]

Subways are not necessarily heavy rail, although they commonly are. Yes, commuter rail is cheapest out of the three options covered here, mainly because of the infrastructure being limited to primarily just rail. Bussing tons of power all over costs a load of cash. Most commuter lines are diesel locos (there are plenty of electric ones though).

I am very much against streetcars or anything mixed with street-level traffic in or near OKC. (unless of course we get rid of automobile traffic downtown and that is not likely to fly) I think way too many people only look at it and say "Wow that really looks neat" and they don't consider the function of the mode of transit and how it would interact with our heavy automobile-dominated downtown. That mode of transit requires automobile and streetcar traffic to constantly yield to each other and there is little in the way of safety other than 'keep your eyes peeled', whether you are a pedestrian walking or a car driving. There is also a huge investment in power distribution, not to mention the overhead wiring aesthetics and cost. Take a look at my ideas below...I want to know what y'all think of this idea?

As folks have established back in the past threads here, subway with your choice of rail type is best for a downtown, however, we don't have that option for our existing downtown. Maybe for the south C2S part we can build the tunnels with the new roads, but not for what we have now. People, we don't have enough lanes for street-level traffic as it is, let alone bike lanes or room for buses...so to "give a lane" to streetcar is not a good functional solution for okc.

What would work most efficiently for OKC (downtown) would be to run a raised rail people mover that connects people in the area with parking and to a future multimodal transit facility. For aesthetic and money reasons I would suggest a mono-rail style rail configuration with some really cool environment-friendly power configuration so we don't have large power distro's all over the place with thick copper bus bars and conduits running along the rail. This would eliminate the big, wide, ugly aerial rails like Miami has, and would be simply a foot-wide (approx) pre-fab bar and support pillars lined in a dual-track config (for redundancy/backup as well as constant two-way service) and could be painted/decorated to match the architecture it is near. The stations that are not directly connected to buildings or parking garages would need to be designed and laid out to be very easily accessible and visually pleasing (blend in to the surrounding area so as not to detract from the downtown look more than the road itself does). Now, consider this: when C2S begins to take shape, the south 'downtown' gets a subway tunnel and we extend the downtown monorail loop into the subway tunnel in the new part of downtown...it would be just like heavy-rail subways elsewhere, but a fraction of the cost! We would then have the cheapest subway system in America!

This loop would be high-speed, to say the least. I'm talking no more than 3-minutes between trains and a total of maybe ten minutes to 'do the whole loop'. Stops would be less than or equal to 30 secs, just like rapid transit.

Other manufacturers exist, but have a look at Metrail (metrail.com). They've got a unique product. That system costs way way way less than competing systems (and less than streetcar) and is modular as heck! You can configure and marry the stock to fit your needs. I think that around five sets of two or three trains connecting downtown in a high-speed loop that includes the transit station and parking lots would be awesome. We would keep cars on the roads and pedestrians off of them...and save money too! That is both economical and safe. The bike lane folks could have more luck getting bike lanes with this plan as well.





I know most of you associate a mono rail configuration with the ugly and expensive systems that have been erected in America in the past. The Las Vegas system is a disaster because they made it a disaster by design. Bombardier is the most expensive system on the market and they built it where no one to get to it and charge sky-high rates! So, I challenge you, in the course of exploring these options, be open-minded about our options. Check out Sydney's downtown or Khuala Lumpur, Moscow (even cheaper) or Tokyo, China, etc... lots of options that are starting to make their way to America, like high-speed rail, originate from these areas. Dont look at the town or region itself, but rather the impact of the mode of transit on the downtown! See how well it integrates with traffic and keeps auto's flowing smoothly without right-of-way issues.

I have a concept plan for downtown if anyone is interested.

----

Now, concerning the greater metro, that is a huge animal. Do understand that "light rail" is just a term that has been recently applied to a type of rolling stock and it doesn't necessarily mean that the cars are "lighter". Look at the "heavy rail" or "rapid transit" Breda cars that Marta, Metro and others run on...they are lighter than a bunch of the "light rail" cars. So don't let that 'light' term fool you. The light part doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The way I see it, flexibility is key. In most, if not all, light rail configurations, you have a end cars with cabs, and ones that are middle cars only. Whereas with "rapid transit" or "heavy rail" cars, they are typically "married pairs". So, if there is a huge OU game happening, you can run sets of 16 of those friggin things in high frequency to handle the traffic loads to/from norman. If there's a huge game at the Ford center, same thing. And during regular hours, you can run them however they need to run. Break 'em or mate 'em as the traffic loads require! Bottom line is, they are like tools in your toolbox and you can make them work to match the public's needs...much more friendlier to maintenance dept as well when trying to shuffle stock that's out for maintenance.

I also believe that to be efficient and popular, the system is gonna have to have an unobstructed right-of-way so that it can at least get up to a reasonable speeds.

Obviously, electric is more environmentally friendly, but OKC may be better to run the metro-spread with diesel stock first to cope with the cost and then as the system catches on, execute a plan to move to a complete electric rapid transit solution.

I have a concept plan for the metro system is anyone is interested.

----

Ever wonder why most of all the public transit systems in the U.S. cost more to operate than they bring in? We've got to quit thinking the same way all the time and be open to new ideas. Public transit systems in some other countries do much more than break even, they pay for themselves and cost less to ride than some of our systems! We've got to look at why others did what they did. Let's build a system for metro OKC that is not just another system.

[Kerry]

I would be happy with a street car system that focuses oon the area with 2 or 3 miles of downtown. OKC needs to reinvent itself to be mass transit friendly. They need to build a transit network from the core out. Commuter rail (heavy rail or whatever you want to call it) from Edmond and Norman to downtown won't do you much good if you don't have a way to get to the west edge of downtown, the health sciences center, the state capital, or midtown without having to walk. A street car system will also encourage higher densities along the lines which will make downtown a 24/7 environemnt.

[sgray]

But Kerry, what good is a streetcar system that takes you as long to get around the slow-moving loop as it does to fly to ATL? In addition to the speed and safety issues, you have the redundancy issues. What if a train breaks down? How do you get around that? This idea I proposed would not stop because of the dual-ring redundancy. Same way it is set-up in those cities I mentioned that works so well.

If we could build a faster, safer, more efficient system for less $$$, then why spend more money on a slower, less-efficient, less-safe system? For looks alone? The method I proposed has never had one fatal accident, in close to 100 years of operation--not because of the mode, but because of the separated modes. Not to mention that changes to the system would be easier as there wouldn't be so much "hard" infrastructure all over the place, so it would also cost less to change the system as the city changes, you know?

Mixing automobile traffic and rail traffic with invisible 'yield' signs all over the place is not a future-proof solution. Not only will the line be slow and prone to accidents due to right-of-way, but the existing traffic is gonna slow to even more of a crawl due to the additional load.

The best transit designs in the world separate different modes of transit.

[Kerry]

SGray - here is the angle I am coming from. 90% of all trips are local. Grocery store, eating out, school, shopping, etc. If you are going to build a system why not build one that covers 90% of the trips? On the monorail front, what happens if the monorail breaks down? With an electric trolley a flatbed truck with a crane comes along and lifts it off the tracks and takes it back to the repair facility. These would be electric trolleys so there really isn't much that can go wrong with them anyhow.

We are also talking about to different geographic areas. Your plan seems to be metro wide and I am only concerned with the urban core and surrounding neighborhoods. If you want to live out on Northwest expressway then you are on your own under my plan. If you want to live near or in downtown then you have the option of doing so without needing a car under my plan. Not all of OKC can be a 24/7 district, but downtown can be. OKC is one big suburban city, we need to start building an urban core.

On a final note – whatever rail plan is adopted it needs to be free to ride. Pay for it through ads.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Mixing automobile traffic and rail traffic with invisible 'yield' signs all over the place is not a future-proof solution. Not only will the line be slow and prone to accidents due to right-of-way, but the existing traffic is gonna slow to even more of a crawl due to the additional load.

The best transit designs in the world separate different modes of transit.

I hear what you are saying and on the surface it sounds great. However, by following your assumption that the best way to circulate people is by separating their paths of travel to avoid accidents, it would seem pedestrian traffic should be separated from other other modes as well. I would encourage you to do your reseach on what happens when you do that.

[sgray]

Kerry- I am curious if you read any of my post. There are two parts-1) downtown loop connecting all common points (including what you mentioned); and 2) a metro-wide transit system, which does offer connecting service to downtown. So I dont get how you think my plan doesn't include downtown--I wrote almost an entire half-page on downtown alone!

Also, apparantly you still didn't finish reading my post because I made a point about the dual-ring topology, where there is continuous non-stop service even if a train does break down. Even if a train breaks down, service will not stop. The monorail train would be towed and left on the rail and service would not stop because of the other ring. So while your rail is being lifted and moved, nobody gets to ride--they have to find another way--you only have one track along that line. Also, don't forget that because under normal operations the trains are going opposite directions... yep, if you are wanting to go the opposite way to the store, you don't have to ride the loop all the way around, or in the case of the streetcar, wait for it to come back in the correct direction.

CuatrodeMayo- No, no, no. The point was to keep congestion to a minimum. We don't want to put additional burden on the roadways just because we are adding another mode of transit. And if we build any more at-grade train/streetcar crossings, the traffic wont move at all. Look at all the railroad crossings we have in busy city areas now where traffic has to sit and wait just because a train is crossing. Why? Why can't we invest in things like under/overpasses and means to keep modes of transit moving independently and freely when we use it every day of our lives for the foreseeable future? Why do we have to be so cheap with things that would be so helpful to our everyday lives? This is why so many systems worldwide do it this way and why it works so well and their systems are paying for themselves--unlike here in the states. There are areas here in this country where things are done pretty good though.

Let me ask you this: our earlier generation had the foresight and open-mindedness to build some of those old underpasses down there near 7th st where the tracks run east-west. And the best we could do was to put railroad crossings all over the place where people have to sit and wait for no reason at all other than to save a few bucks on building the road under the rail??? Why is such a helpful thing a bad investment? Something that we would use daily and it would improve our way of life in our community.

Also, look at it this way: why do we build vertical buildings instead of horizontal ones? Efficient use of space, right? Well transit works no different. What if every 200 feet you had a stop sign on the highway? All of a sudden travel by automobile would be a bit**, right? Well, lots of limits are lifted when we get that train off the ground. We choose where the stops are, and the train can zoooom from point to point. Whereas on the surface, it has to go very slow and stop and move with the traffic. So, if cars clog up an intersection (intentional or not), that train can't just crash through them, it has to stop and delay everyone on that train even more. Works much better either below ground (preferable) or fail that, above the surface enough to clear obstacles below.

Hope that helps clear things up.