1/ Before the world ends, I must finish my series "RAIL TRANSIT TERMINOLOGY". So, here is another episode:

"LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT" or LRT, a special North American typology of rail transit terminology that is, in reality, many things at a time.
2/ A short recap, that most of you already know. LRT came to the US via Canada as an adaptation of the Stadtbahn or pre-metro model, that is, a rail system that uses tramway technology in a range of reserved-to-segregated alignements to improve speed, capacity and reliability
3/The German or Belgian model are different though. There, Stadtbahn/Pre-metro systems were developed out of existing tramway networks in the postwar years, mostly coupling new city-center tunnels with existing reserved RoWs (boulevard medians or out-of-street) in outlying areas
4/ In Canada and the US, LRTs were developed from scratch starting from the 1980s. And Boston, Philly, San Francisco? Well, even if they are called LRTs, I think it create less ambiguities to classify them as subway-surface, as they have a different, quite unique story & features
5/ Modern North-American LRTs, even if they use tramway like trainsets, both high-floor in the older generation and low floor in the new ones, have alignements and service patterns that go from regional rail to subway to quasi M-E-T ->
6/ One of the main features that make LRTs different both from European M-E-T and, in part, from Stadtbahn is rolling stock size, that tends to be much longer, often with couples trainsets, reflecting the NA preference to satisfy demand with train capacity rather than frequency
7/ For example, European M-E-T have commonly 30-42m long platform (able to accomodate a single articulated tramway of 5 to 7 elements), while many North American examples are much longer, with platforms being > 80m to accomodate 2 or even 3 coupled train sets.
8/ In terms of urban insertion, LRTs cover a large spectrum. On one side, systems like Phoenix or Houston have an almost M-E-T-like alignement, all at grade in reserved street medians with limited to no grade separation. Average stop spacing is much longer though , at > 1km
9/ On the opposite side, Seattle, Edmonton and LA Green Line have a quasi-metro alignement, with heavy infrastructures for complete grade separation, in tunnel, elevated guideway, railway RoW and, an infamous specialty of NA, freeway median, with large, metro-like stations.
10/ In between there are a number of "hybrid" systems with a mix of street-running on reserved medians and in pedestrian malls, downtown tunnels (but even suburban ones), targeted grade-separation in specific intersections, former rail, etc.
11/ Those choices in the quality of alignement reflect the overstretching the LRT technology has been subject in NA transit planning, as they are used to do the job of a local transit but also the backbone of an entire region, with lines going deep into the suburbs for miles
12/ For comparison, LA Gold line will be 70 km when finished, stretching some 50km East from downtown. The N-S LRT spine in Seattle will be almost 90km. That is a distance even longer than the average S-Bahn system in Europe, while a Stadtbahn ine is rarely more than 15-20km
13/ The question is if such a technology can be both good at funnelling rapidly distant commuters from the farthest suburb to downtown and crawl in a neighborhood's street to serve local trips. Maybe we are asking this technology too much, to be both fast and cover local demand.
14/ It is easy to understand how LRT brought to planners and politicians the mirage of a cheaper way to provide rail transit in the sprawled West and South American Metros and to the Canadian prairies. But when overstretched too much, the results have honestly been mediocre.
15/Overall, the LRT is not a "bad" concept, but is surely not the silver bullet that will solve all the disparate transportation needs of the (too) vast urban regions of North America. Sure, it has a place in the mix of solutions NA cities can use to address their mobility needs
16/ And this is the previous episode, about interurbans :

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marco Chitti

Marco Chitti Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChittiMarco

3 Jan
1/ Here we are: the third episode of the holiday limited series : "RAIL TRANSIT TERMINOLOGY"

Today, I will focus on two typologies that are separated by a century but are somehow related: "INTERURBAN TRAMWAYS" and "TRAM-TRAIN", or when the streetcar discover the countryside. ImageImage
2/ Disclaimer: "interurban" describes a wide family of street and off-street rail transit whose technical characteristics are blurred with proper mainline rail. Interurbans are effectively a family of rail transit solutions ranging from out-of-town tramway to "cheap" local rail
3/ The era of interurbans started in the 1880s, first as steam (or even horse) powered local railways with extensive street-running sections. Yet, the real golden-age, as for urban tramways, begun with the electric traction, spurring the 1885-1915 30-year global interurbans' boom ImageImage
Read 21 tweets
28 Dec 20
1/ We all know WHAT are the ingredients of a Frequent "Regional Rail" network. But there is little talk often about the "HOW to get there".

The case of Lombardy is quite interesting as it shows that, no matter how long it takes, what matters is to have a PLAN and stick to it.
2/ I'm doing this thread because I ended up reading a number of documents about how, in a general framework of stagnation or even decrease in regional rail use in Italy in the last two decades, Lombardy doubled its daily rail ridership from 400,000 in 2000 to 800,000 in 2018.
3/ Of course, the most "glittering part", the piece of hard infrastructure that enabled such a stark increase in service is the "passante": a cross-city rail link opened in phases between 1997-2004 that allows for through-running of "suburban" trains
Read 20 tweets
22 Dec 20
1/ After a little exchange here about the unsolvable problem of transit terminology, I decided to start a new regular thread over holiday period: "RAIL TRANSIT TERMINOLOGY"

Why? Just for the fun of opening up infinite, inconclusive discussions between transit nerds 👹
2/ I will try to jungle between European and NA examples, to try to understand to which extent it is possible to compare oranges with apples when we talk about the great variety of rail transit choices and why it's always useful to dig into details (looking for the evil).
3/ Importantly, I will take into account what I consider 3 main interrelated factors, the first being the most important :

1. urban insertion (how does a given alignement interact with the urban environment).

2. Type of rolling stock/rail technology.

3. Drivers of choice
Read 16 tweets
22 Dec 20
I did myself a gift: the Italian Atlas of Transportation. It's a very visual and informative atlas of all transportation networks, services etc., with a lot of informative and visually pleasant charts, graphs about service, infrastructure, demand, etc.
Another example: historic chart of the national mainline rail network with electrification and double tracking
Number of daily trains by section and by station, divided by type (regional or long distance)
Read 8 tweets
12 Dec 20
1/ Sometimes we frame technology choices in transit as value-driven choices (x is better/worse than y). This is somehow inevitable, as planning is a value-based, often prescriptive practice.
But we must try to debunk some preconceptions.

I'll try with trolleybus vs tramway
2/ To make it easier, I'll apply it to a concrete case. Again, it's my hometown, Bologba, a city that has envisioned to use both technologies to satisfy the demand of its trunk transit routes, and is finally going toward a mix of both.
3/ To begin: why buses, whether, ICE or electric, are not enough? The current bus+trolleybus network carries, in the urban core, 320k/day. But eight radial trunk lines, plus the inner ring, carry alone 234k/day, i.e. 75% of the entire ridership.
Read 19 tweets
11 Dec 20
I'm going through a very interesting breakdown of costs for Bologna's new tramway line. 237m out of 509m € are made of hard costs (that don't include signaling and electric).

Of that, the maintenance center/depot is 79m.

Actual tram RoW is 77m€ for 16.5km -> 4.7m€/km
The depot is somehow bigger than needed (40 places for 24 tramways), because it will have spare place for the rolling stock needed for lines 2 and 3. But it's interesting to see that the depot/control/maintenance center is almost a third of the "hard" costs
There is a also a station-by-station (fermata) price-tag. They are 42m long with a shelter, benches, vending machine etc. On average they costs 120,000 €. Interestingly, ESS (sottostazione elettrica) costs 250-350K/each
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!