Light Rail Boom

[J. Will]

Yes, but Sounder has even less ridership than Central Link - only about 9000 boardings per day on the two lines combined.

[Justin10000]

Seattle's line is more regional in nature, compared to Calgary's system. Seattle focused on moving commuters a long distance as quickly as possible. The line only has 13 stations. I think Sound Transit projected around 25,000 riders to use the system.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Doug

Another huge factor is that historically the oil and gas industry preferred to locate within walking distance of the EUB (Energy Utilities Board), the Provincial government department that allocates drilling permits. The industries that supported oil and gas, such as engineering, banking, finance, accouting, insurance, legal etc. consequently located close to their client base. Calgary really is unique and planning has far less to do with than geography and history.

Having lived in both cities, it sure doesn't feel that way. I've always questioned the quoted employment stats for downtown Calgary.

The other difference is that Seattle has multiple employment nodes: downtown, SLU, UW, Redmond, Bellevue whereas Calgary basically has one.

[seaskyfan]

As stated several times earlier in this thread, Seattle's line is new and is performing fairly close to anticipated (particularly given the shift in the economy). The big ridership boost has been anticipated with the completion of the next two stations northbound (Capitol Hill and UW) in 2016. The way to evaluate the success of these new light rail lines is whether they have come close to meeting expectations and (in the US in particular) whether the agency's progress on building them has kept voter confidence. Clearly in Seattle with the fairly recent voter-approved expansion that is that case.

[miketoronto]

I think it should be noted that no LRT system in the USA has achieved the ridership that Heavy Rail lines have attracted.
MARTA in Atlanta by far still has far better ridership than most other LRT systems despite its smaller length in most cases.

The whole question is whether LRT is really the only option that should be built, which is what is happening now. Are we not attracting the numbers we could to transit because we are bent on only using one mode of transport at this time(LRT)???

That is the question to ask?????

Could Seattle have been carrying 100,000 a day if they had built a MARTA type line instead of surface LRT in the middle of the road, which can not compete with auto travel.

[mhays]

Not on the route Seattle chose. Far too low-density, and very little parking. Speed is a factor, but probably smaller than the other factors. Even there the system is a hybrid of elevated and tunnel along with at-grade, and much faster than many LR systems.

Atlanta isn't a good comparison. For one, their regional transit ridership is terrible, even compared to middlin' Seattle. I suspect that MARTA serves in much the same way as Seattle's suburban express bus HOV routes.

Sounder Commuter Rail is a low-capacity service. It's just peak times (vs. throughout the day), mostly in the prevailing direction to and from Downtown Seattle, and only to suburban stations (aside from Downtown Seattle and fringe industrial districts on the edges of Downtown Tacoma and Downtown Everett that operate like suburban stations). It's mostly a park-n-ride and kiss-n-ride service aside from a moderate level of transfers from other transit modes. Given these locations and the lack of transit culture or density in most of these areas, the limiting factors are the amount of parking at the stations, and the difficulty in getting track space for more trains from BNRR. If I recall(?) there are a total of 13 trips each rush period right now (South line = 7 prevailing, 2 opposite; North line 4 prevailing), which will become 17 soon, also with an extension being built south of Tacoma.) The lines will start acting like "regular" commuter rail routes once the various suburban station areas gain some density, as most intend to, and with service levels eventually high enough that's it's not just for people heading to/from 8-5 office jobs in Downtown Seattle.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I think it should be noted that no LRT system in the USA has achieved the ridership that Heavy Rail lines have attracted.
MARTA in Atlanta by far still has far better ridership than most other LRT systems despite its smaller length in most cases.

The whole question is whether LRT is really the only option that should be built, which is what is happening now. Are we not attracting the numbers we could to transit because we are bent on only using one mode of transport at this time(LRT)???

That is the question to ask?????

Could Seattle have been carrying 100,000 a day if they had built a MARTA type line instead of surface LRT in the middle of the road, which can not compete with auto travel.

I've ridden Link a few times. I doubt heavy rail would save more than a few minutes between downtown and SeaTac. My only complaint is that the walk from the SeaTac station to the actual airport checkin is very long - 10 mins or so. I suspect part of the reason is that the station site is adjacent to a proposed town center redevelopment.

As other have said, I would reserve judegment on Link until it opens to UW.

[J. Will]

It's unfortunate there will be no station on First Hill - one of the densest neighbourhoods in the entire Pacific NW. I know it would be very expensive because of the depth of the tunnel through the area, but all major infrastructure projects are expensive.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Doug

I've ridden Link a few times. I doubt heavy rail would save more than a few minutes between downtown and SeaTac. My only complaint is that the walk from the SeaTac station to the actual airport checkin is very long - 10 mins or so. I suspect part of the reason is that the station site is adjacent to a proposed town center redevelopment.

It's a quarter mile to the first check in desk, and a half mile to the last. I'm basing that on google maps plus some extra. Even the half-mile distance shouldn't take 10 minutes.

[travelinmiles]

Speed should mean something. I wonder if Houston had grade separated at least portions of the line (i.e. the TMC and downtown) to decrease travel time, what kind of ridership would it have. Currenltly, it has still be quite successful but 32 min to go 7 miles is quick at all. The stopping at signal lights is what irks me to no end.

[ssiguy]

I think most of the US cities building LRT for true rapid transit would be better served by a Monorail systems. It's just as cheap to build and can be built very quickly.
Most importantly is that it can be automated saving huge amounts on labour costs. One thing I have noticed about US cities is that they will build this large elaborate LRT/subway systems and then rune them every 12 minutes off peak and every 6 minutes peak..................that's horrible service. With automated systems the frequency could be three times that rate with no labour costs basically just the electrical to power them.
In a society that is adverse to giving up their cars, speed is of the essence and people will be far more enticed to take it if there is one arrivng every couple minutes.
Vancouver's SkyTrain runs every 2.5 minutes off peak and every 90 seconds peak but no labour costs for running it. SkyTrain has less labour costs run at that frequency than one single LRT car. Being close to SkyTrain is quite literally like have a taxi at your door.

[J. Will]

One thing I have noticed about US cities is that they will build this large elaborate LRT/subway systems and then rune them every 12 minutes off peak and every 6 minutes peak..................that's horrible service.

That (6 minute peak, 12 minute off peak) is indeed pretty poor service, but many of them actually run LESS FREQUENTLY than that.

----------------------------
Seattle:
-To be fair, eventually service should be much more frequent, especially from ID Station north, where 2 or even 3 routes are supposed to interline. An informative read on what eventual service frequencies might be like is Train Frequency and the Downtown Tunnel on Seattle Transit Blog. I doubt the section south of downtown will ever have better than 6 minute service though, with all the at-grade crossings.



-------------------------
Phoenix: http://www.valleymetro.org/schedules...ice=3317&sort=

12-minute peak, Monday-Friday
20-minute very early morning, and after about 8pm
---------------------------
Salt Lake City: http://www.rideuta.com/ridingUTA/sch...Schedules.aspx

Routes 701, 702

15-minute peak (they do interline for a distance, so effective peak frequency of 7.5 minutes along that distance). Still not very good.
----------------------------
Houston:

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think most of the US cities building LRT for true rapid transit would be better served by a Monorail systems. It's just as cheap to build and can be built very quickly.
Most importantly is that it can be automated saving huge amounts on labour costs. One thing I have noticed about US cities is that they will build this large elaborate LRT/subway systems and then rune them every 12 minutes off peak and every 6 minutes peak..................that's horrible service. With automated systems the frequency could be three times that rate with no labour costs basically just the electrical to power them.
In a society that is adverse to giving up their cars, speed is of the essence and people will be far more enticed to take it if there is one arrivng every couple minutes.
Vancouver's SkyTrain runs every 2.5 minutes off peak and every 90 seconds peak but no labour costs for running it. SkyTrain has less labour costs run at that frequency than one single LRT car. Being close to SkyTrain is quite literally like have a taxi at your door.

Just wanted to say late at the night Skytrain does drop down to about every 5-8 minutes or in the case of the Canada Line every 10-20 minutes. It really depends on whether you are at a station that is interlined or not.

Usually though I only have to wait 8 minutes coming home from work at the station that I wait at. It also takes 8 minutes to travel the 7 KM (4.32 Miles) through 6 stations.

I've always felt that if I had choice between a longer train with lower frequency versus a shorter train but with higher frequency. Even though in both cases the pphpd would be exactly the same. I would always choose and prefer the shorter train with the higher frequency. Of course the biggest reason is people having to wait less time. That also means that people won't be standing at and using up space at a station as long. The longer your wait the bigger your station has to be to handle the crowd that will be waiting for a train.

As for LRT there is nothing wrong with it. What has been wrong in most of the systems is not spending that extra bit of money to grade separate the whole system.

[jtk1519]

Originally Posted by cabotp

As for LRT there is nothing wrong with it. What has been wrong in most of the systems is not spending that extra bit of money to grade separate the whole system.

This. Grade separated LRT gives you almost everything heavy rail does at a fraction of the cost.

[Sekkle]

Originally Posted by jtk1519

This. Grade separated LRT gives you almost everything heavy rail does at a fraction of the cost.

It's not at a fraction of the cost. It's the same cost. The grade separation itself is where the higher cost comes in - it doesn't matter whether it's heavy rail or light rail. The reason light rail is cheaper is the at-grade/street-running sections, which cost less to build than grade separations. A bored tunnel for a light rail line will cost just as much as a bored tunnel for heavy rail (maybe more since the tunnel diameter needs to be bigger to accommodate the catenary wires). Same with a bridge (ok, the bridge cost might be slightly higher for heavy rail if they have to design for the additional weight of a 10-car train vs. a 3-car light rail train).

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Sekkle

It's not at a fraction of the cost. It's the same cost. The grade separation itself is where the higher cost comes in - it doesn't matter whether it's heavy rail or light rail. The reason light rail is cheaper is the at-grade/street-running sections, which cost less to build than grade separations. A bored tunnel for a light rail line will cost just as much as a bored tunnel for heavy rail (maybe more since the tunnel diameter needs to be bigger to accommodate the catenary wires). Same with a bridge (ok, the bridge cost might be slightly higher for heavy rail if they have to design for the additional weight of a 10-car train vs. a 3-car light rail train).

You are quite right that it is the fact that a system like skytrain that has to be grade separate which makes it much more expensive. The benefit of course is it never has to deal with other modes of transportation moving on around it. It also allows it to be automated thus never having to worry about driver labour costs and paying over time when some event is happening.

It is probably the biggest reason the system ran so well during the Olympics. If there had been drivers. They would of had to found other drivers to drive the trains during off peak hours to have more trains later at night. Or else they would of had to have kept the much lower frequency at night. But because it was automated it allowed them to run pretty much all the trains during operating hours which was about 4:30am to 2:00am give or take a few minutes. Thus if a sudden wave of people wanted to leave downtown the trains were already moving and drivers didn't have to be gathered to try and increase the trains to accommodate the flash rush.

[BrennanW]

Stations for HRT are much more expensive than an LRT station because the tracks need to be separated from pedestrians because of the third rail and faster operating speeds.

In Denver, RTD saved a load of cash building grade separated LRT in the suburbs. Out there, it works much the same as your average HRT system, however there are no "fare boundaries" and stations are only single-level (in most cases- Nine Mile Station and some others have multiple levels due to highways and parking garages). But the vast majority of stations require a person arriving or departing to cross an active track before going curbside.

RTD saved a lot of money by building the system they have now, but they are now feeling the heat, as the on-street, downtown loop is now at-capacity for trains and would be unable to handle any new LRT lines to points south, which is one reason all trains on the under-construction West Corridor will route to Union Station and the I-225 expansion trains (G Line) will be completely tangential.

Also, keep in mind that your average HRT vehicle is much lighter than an LRT vehicle because an LRT vehicle must maintain federal crash standards for collisions with road vehicles like trucks and vans. Surviving crashes like those requires having mass on par with that other vehicle, increasing weight. HRT trains only have to withstand a crash with another HRT train. As we've seen in Washington, D.C., those crashes can easily tun out pretty ugly.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by BrennanW

Stations for HRT are much more expensive than an LRT station because the tracks need to be separated from pedestrians because of the third rail and faster operating speeds.

Not every HRT system operates on third rail. Pretty much every Chinese metro, for example, operates on overhead caternary just like LRT.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Sekkle

It's not at a fraction of the cost. It's the same cost. The grade separation itself is where the higher cost comes in - it doesn't matter whether it's heavy rail or light rail. The reason light rail is cheaper is the at-grade/street-running sections, which cost less to build than grade separations. A bored tunnel for a light rail line will cost just as much as a bored tunnel for heavy rail (maybe more since the tunnel diameter needs to be bigger to accommodate the catenary wires). Same with a bridge (ok, the bridge cost might be slightly higher for heavy rail if they have to design for the additional weight of a 10-car train vs. a 3-car light rail train).

Skytrain uses a third rail, like an HR system, so you would not have to bore a larger tunnel.

This is why it is difficult to classify sktrain, it seems to be neither LRT or HRT, but a hybrid of the two (maybe that is why it gets its own designations as ALRT or "Light Metro".)

I personally feel that skytrain is more akin to a true Metro than LRT (largely due to its third rail, grade separation (subway tunnels and elevated guide ways) and high frequency. Also, I believe in the future the trunk line (Expo) with its planned station renovations/expansions will also be able to carry HR capacity (I have heard possibly up to 30 000 phpd, again, if my memory serves me correctly).

Nearly ever out of town tourists and foreign / exchange student I have talked to refers to skytrain as a Metro.

I agree though that there is nothing wrong with LRT, as long as it is grade separated or has its own complete ROW on a rail bed akin to a freight line.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Skytrain uses a third rail, like an HR system, so you would not have to bore a larger tunnel.

This is why it is difficult to classify sktrain, it seems to be neither LRT or HRT, but a hybrid of the two (maybe that is why it gets its own designations as ALRT or "Light Metro".)

I personally feel that skytrain is more akin to a true Metro than LRT (largely due to its third rail, grade separation (subway tunnels and elevated guide ways) and high frequency. Also, I believe in the future the trunk line (Expo) with its planned station renovations/expansions will also be able to carry HR capacity (I have heard possibly up to 30 000 phpd, again, if my memory serves me correctly).

Nearly ever out of town tourists and foreign / exchange student I have talked to refers to skytrain as a Metro.

I agree though that there is nothing wrong with LRT, as long as it is grade separated or has its own complete ROW on a rail bed akin to a freight line.

Again, 3rd rail has nothing to do with the light rail/heavy rail distinction. There are plenty of HRT systems in the world (including, as I mentioned before, nearly all Chinese systems) that use overhead catenary rather than 3rd rail for power. The LRT/HRT distinction has to do with the mass of the vehicles themselves, as HRT vehicles are generally much larger and heavier than LRT vehicles, and operate in larger consists which are unable to operate individually as LRT vehicles can.