Which is your favourite and why?

Each transport mode has it's advantages and disadvantages and each one is best suited for certain situations. A metro/subway is best for mass transportation on relatively large distances in a dense city, while a tram is better for short distances in a city, etcetera.

Personally I always prefer to ride a tram or light rail... rather slow, but in many cities it is a good way to see the city.

I would have to say light rail, since I have grown up with it and using it everyday. But in Calgary we do have a very good light rail system so that may hold some bias.

What exactly is the difference between "Light Rail" and "Tram"? I thought Light Rail is a more general term to describe rail vehicles that are "light" in nature. They can be operated in surface streets, tunnels and elevated guideways. While Tram is just street surface. Correct?

Germany's combination of S- and U-bahns is unstoppable in terms of coverage.

I was once a daily commuter on Boston's MBTA. Part of my commute was on the Green Line light rail system and part was on the Red Line subway. There was just no comparison. In terms of speed, comfort, and frequency of service, the subway was far superior.

Light rail is targeted toward communities that do not have adequate population density to support heavy rail/subway. This invariably means that light rail service is less frequent and that a lighter level of engineering is used (grade crossings rather than bridges or tunnels). As a consequence, it is unfair to compare the two types of systems.

What exactly is the difference between "Light Rail" and "Tram"? I thought Light Rail is a more general term to describe rail vehicles that are "light" in nature. They can be operated in surface streets, tunnels and elevated guideways. While Tram is just street surface. Correct?

This is a question that has been covered in many threads on SSC, and the answer is that there is no answer... defenitions differ from country to country.

In my opinion the defenition that makes sense in most countries: trams are the more traditional transport mode, running mostly on city streets. Light rail is much like a tram, but runs mostly on its right of way, has higher speeds, level boarding (either through elevated platforms or through low floor vehicles) and sometimes runs on mainline (heavy) railways. Examples include Stadtbahn networks in Germany and many new light rail networks in the US.

But your mileage may vary, according to whom you ask.

I prefer traveling by car or on foot. But as far as city's public transportation is concerned I belive subway + tram system is the best

In Zagreb, where I live there is a tram sytem and a rail system. Subway construction is still in planning.

U-Bahn + S-Bahn <-- That's what I prefer! ;)

Metro for me! It's fast, reliable, safe, clean, modern, with many km(in Madrid at least)...

Each transport mode has it's advantages and disadvantages and each one is best suited for certain situations. A metro/subway is best for mass transportation on relatively large distances in a dense city, while a tram is better for short distances in a city, etcetera.

Personally I always prefer to ride a tram or light rail... rather slow, but in many cities it is a good way to see the city.

:yes: Exactly.

In Hamburg, the U-Bahn (metro) and the S-Bahn (short distance commuter rail) are nearly the same. But I prefer the U-Bahn (which is in Hamburg in most cases an elevated rail), because of the higher frequency.

The S-bahn is only one type of commuter travel, and shouldn't be thought of as just commuter rail.

S-bahns typically travel shorter distances for commuting than other commuter rail. Generally, trains stop at all stations and often the line doesn't terminate in the city or main train station, but travels underground (or elevated) through the city and out the other end to continue in the suburbs - this makes the S-bahn similar to the Paris RER.

In German cities (like in Paris) there is another level of commuter rail based on the R-bahn (regional trains). These also operate between cities, but when entering a metropolitan belt, they are used as express commuter trains - that is, they don't stop at all stations, and usually terminate at the main station of the central city.

Many other country's have similar systems to the S-bahn, or a hybred R-bahn & S-bahn (i.e. some trains stop at all stations, whilst other "expresses" only at main stations)

So S Bahns would be similar to Thames Link 2000 scheme in London then?

So S Bahns would be similar to Thames Link 2000 scheme in London then?

Yes and No. The similarities is that Thameslink crosses through the city (underground) and continues out the other side.

However, I don’t know if the frequencies of the Thameslink service are as good. Generally, most S-bahn’s have an absolute minimum of 2 trains an hour off-peak, and of cause in bundled lines this is much better.

What is Thameslink’s min. frequencies off peak?

Another thing is that Thameslink seems to be longer than the average S-bahn lines. Usually S-bahns stop at every station, and are not very long.

It appears to me that the Thameslink is actually a hybrid of S-bahn and R-bahn. In other words, similar to what you find in Sydney.

http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/references/Maps/map_thameslink.gif

I like Adelaide's O-Bahn system (Busway), but the great thing about this is that the buses run on special tracks that only buses and emergency vehicles can drive on(They have special secondary wheels which are positioned to glide along the tracks). They also travel at quite high speeds.

Brisbane has a busway network as well, except these are just normal roads which are set aside for buses. The South-East busway goes about 35Km from the CBD and the Inner Northern Busway goes about 7Km north. There is a northern busway planned as well as an Eastern Busway, which would cross the Green Bridge(A bridge which will only carry buses, pedestrians and cyclists) to the University of Queensland(The second busiest centre of activity in Brisbane). The busway network will eventually have routes over 100Km in total in all directions.

The best thing about busways is that they are much more accessible than train lines. i.e. buses can then travel off the busway into other areas. Also, on the Brisbane busways, if buses brake down, they can be overtaken so that other buses can continue along the route.

Thameslink goes a lot further than an S-bahn, also when inside the city it misses out some of the smaller stations which would make it more "R-bahn"
im not sure about the frequencies, when i travelled on it it seemed like a train every 30 mins

Subway/ el
-----------
Apart from the fact I'm a railfan, heavy rail/Subways are and will be the most effiecient and quickest mode of transport in any large city.
Each system always sems to have it's own vibe and culture behind it, which makes riding a whole lot more interesting than some sterile Light Rail system.

METRO!!
:)
Check:
www.urbanrail.net
:wink2:

I like Subways and Lightrail for Public transportation while freeway travel is great personal transportation. '

For running errands I prefer taking a car and for doing things like going to the Airport or a Convention Center I'd perfer LightRail or the Subway.

IMO, best is combination between S-Bahn and trams for bigger cities, as vertigo said, tram is good for looking around the city and it s quite fast, while s-bahn is for express transportation between city parts.
I am just in such position that i must use s-bahn and trams every morning, and combining both makes sense (and fun :) )

In my opinion you need a combination.
S-Bahn for suburbs, U-Bahn/Subway for larger dinstans in the city.
Tram and Bus (dumm'n'bass :) ) for shorter distance within the city.

I still hope Zürich will once get a proper U-Bahn system.

In my opinion you need a combination.
S-Bahn for suburbs, U-Bahn/Subway for larger dinstans in the city.
Tram and Bus (dumm'n'bass :) ) for shorter distance within the city.

I still hope Zürich will once get a proper U-Bahn system.

does it need one? i thought Zurich had a really good tram and S-bahn system :)

Well it has, but if want to travel between districs in the city you often has to use the Tram, wich sometimes can take quite long. Also the trams are totally overcrowded in rush hours. I would see the U-Bahn as enhancement of the Tram system not as enhancement of the S-Bahn system.
There are about 20 s-bahn stations in the city proper, and they aren't equaly distributed. So there are some quite big gaps between some S-Bahn stations.

S-Bahn is pretty effective for medium to large sized cities (i.e. All Aussie cities)

this metro/commuter hybrid seems to be effective as most commuters are still suburbs - city bound.

Subways are the best by far but EXTREMLY expensive. Those tunneling costs of up to $200 mill CDN/km is very hard to justify except in very high density urban areas.
LRT like Calgary's CTrain is great for rapid transit but also serves the city centre well.
Very extensive system with trains every 6 minutes, every 4 minutes downtown and in the core there is no fare!
I do kinda like LRT as I find them more convient to board than having to make your waay underground. CTrain is on its own ROW with no road contact except right downtown where it uses its own transit only thrufar.
In 20 years the downtown will be tunneled as there will be three more lines going into downtown than there are now. The trains right now will be at approx 4 minute intervals and 2 minutes downtown so the transit road wont cut it.
www.members.shaw.ca/lrtincalgary/
Is the UBAHN similar to Atlanta's subway? Frequent underground stops and then the further it goes out it is at grade on heavy rail lines whith stations every 3km and sorta acts as a commuter line??

U-Bahn is just the German name of Subway, Metro, Underground.

Frequent underground stops and then the further it goes out it is at grade on heavy rail lines whith stations every 3km and sorta acts as a commuter line??
This more sounds like the Munich S-Bahn System.

^ I agree, sounds more like an S-bahn (commuter rail that usually crosses underground in the central area where it almost looks like a subway or metro system, but in the suburbs operates like a commuter system that stops at all stations)

Atlanta's MARTA rail system is similar to many of the other built from scratch Heavy Rail systems constructed in the US during the 1960's and 70's. They typically had stations closer together underground in the center of the city, with stations farther apart and more often with more above ground sections in the outlying neighborhoods and suburbs. This is true of the Washington DC Metro and San Fran's BART (especially BART). The main difference between these systems and S-Bahn networks is that they are entirely self contained, and do not run along the tracks of suburban railroads. Plus they are thrid rail systems. So i guess you could classify them as a hybrid of a Metro/Subway/U-Bahn (or what have you) and a S-Bahn/RER system. Then again, the S-Bahn type of service is virtually non existant in North America. The only sytem that resembles it that i can think of is Philadelphia's SEPTA Regional Rail service, with a tunnel through Center City. There are maybe 5 or 6 stations that are bundled together, and the routes continue through the city instead of terminating at a central station.

Its hard to say. It all depends on the system. You can have a great metro network, but crap actual frequencies of trains, or poor upkeep and thats one disadvantage of large subway systems. Subways are great when they are relatively new,but when they start becoming really old, then they start sucking.

On the other hand LRT is great, but I would rather not take it in cold weather. I'm not a fan of waiting for a tram/lrt/bus when its very cold out, would obviously prefer a subway.

But I have to agree with an earlier post in which the best mode is walking. But of your walking in a hollowed out downtown, then that kinda sucks. All in all, I don't know, it all depends (except NO to cars/commutter rail/bus). I really do prefer taxi.

^ :lol: Taxi is quite a good idea.

A work friend of mine was offered a company car, but she doesn't like driving so much, mainly because of the hassle of parking. So she said instead of getting her a company car, offer the same amount of money that would be spent a year on the car into a taxi fund.

It took a bit of debating with the company, but they gave it a go. Now, she goes absolutely everywhere by taxi. Between work and home everyday, out to the shops, anywhere in the city and metro, and despite using this everyday, in her last two years the final bill per year was less than the cost of a company car

Not bad to be driven around everywhere. I think she has a good idea that is worth investigating further.

does it need one? i thought Zurich had a really good tram and S-bahn system :)
The people were voting against the Subway System in the 70s - there was a plan. But in the 90s with the opening of the S-Bahn system together with tram, bus and boad (ich bin auch ein Tram!) the city has an absolute optimized network for an area of more than 2mio people. I was also once supporting the U-Bahn, but now I think it's not necessary and the Trams are a BIG tourist attraction!

The people were voting against the Subway System in the 70s - there was a plan. But in the 90s with the opening of the S-Bahn system together with tram, bus and boad (ich bin auch ein Tram!) the city has an absolute optimized network for an area of more than 2mio people. I was also once supporting the U-Bahn, but now I think it's not necessary and the Trams are a BIG tourist attraction!


You maybe surprised how much quicker an underground metro is compared to a tram, even in small distances. When travelling between my local stop and the main station, I can go be either tram (direct) or u-bahn (with a change)

Despite having to change on the U-bahn, the total time is still half that of the tram.

This can be seen on other routes with parrallel tram/u-bahn options: Hauptbahnhof to Konstablawache is 3minutes on the u-bahn, and 12-15minutes by tram. Longer distances of cause make the u-bahn even faster.

That said, the tram is always more pleasant to travel by, as one get's to see the streetlife rather than tunnels.

By the way, I can't believe the population voted against a metro - how very Swiss and practical ;)

But I guess you know Zurich a bit... the S-Bahn in the city proper and the northern suburbs is on long tracks underground like a metro, including stations. The tram is only to be used for short distances and doesn't surpass the city limits like in Basel where there is no real alternative to it yet (an S-Bahn is U/C I think).

I live in the very east of the city itself and can choose between a bus, a tram and an S-Bahn to reach the center. Because tram and bus have in neuralgic streets their own tracks, they are not even that slow - by car it can take much longer for example...

The reason for the vote against the U-Bahn was financal I think. At the moment they are building the Glattalbahn - a light rail/tram that connects the centers and suburbs in the booming north (airport, Oerlikon, Glattal). I think it's a good idea to build more radiating connections, like they did long ago in Moscow or London, to avoid the time-wasting changing in the city center.
http://www.andreaspark.ch/elemente/bilder/lebensraum/glattalbahn.gif

But I guess you know Zurich a bit... the S-Bahn in the city proper and the northern suburbs is on long tracks underground like a metro, including stations. The tram is only to be used for short distances and doesn't surpass the city limits like in Basel where there is no real alternative to it yet (an S-Bahn is U/C I think).

I live in the very east of the city itself and can choose between a bus, a tram and an S-Bahn to reach the center. Because tram and bus have in neuralgic streets their own tracks, they are not even that slow - by car it can take much longer for example...

The reason for the vote against the U-Bahn was financal I think. At the moment they are building the Glattalbahn - a light rail/tram that connects the centers and suburbs in the booming north (airport, Oerlikon, Glattal). I think it's a good idea to build more radiating connections, like they did long ago in Moscow or London, to avoid the time-wasting changing in the city center.
http://www.andreaspark.ch/elemente/bilder/lebensraum/glattalbahn.gif

No, I have only visited Zurich, so I won't try to claim I know the city better than you. But I do know trams and metro's. In every example where I have seen a tram parrallel a metro/u-bahn, the metro/u-bahn was much faster. I have yet to see a slower u-bahn.

S-bahn's, if travelling underground, can be as fast as a metro, but they usually don't have enough stops in the central area to make them as practical as a tram or u-bahn.

Anyway, that's just the way I see it.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean it at all offensive if you thought that - I was just not sure if you know the situation in Zurich or not, for I remember in a much earlier post you mentioned the city once, so I had the impression you know it.

The thing with the not enough stops is true. Metro stations should make up about 2-3 tramstops. The S-Bahn has not enough, but it's really a good combination now here of all means of transport where you never have to wait more than 5, on weekends up to 10 minutes for a connection. And as I said I also was a big defender of the Zurich-metro at the beginning. If you are interested, you can visit the page of ZVV, there is also a discussion board where the idea of a metro has been discussed.
http://www.zvv.ch




EDIT, off-topic: To celebrate my 7000th post I organized a little party: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=227416

^ no worries, I know you were not being offencive! You're one of the most level headed forumers at SSC, and you certainly know your stuff!

The metro thing is just a personal preference for me, I'm not saying it would be better in Zurich either, just I havn't seen an example where it didn't - I could always be prooved wrong sometime ;)

:cheers:

Küsel, I am in favor of an U-Bahn as addition to the current Tram network, not as a replacement.

The S-Bahn is great when you want to travel from the city to Oerlikon for example, but there are still "white spots" in the S-Bahn network on the city proper.

I agree with the contruction of radial Lightrail tracks that should be builded. I also think a radial S-Bahn track would be great aswell.


Also the Tram has capacy problems, especially in the rush ours.
The Glatttal bahn wont change anything about the situation in the city.

Subways are great but they damn well should be considering their price tage. They are really only effective where there is high urban density in large metropolitan areas.
LRT is great for medium density in smaller pops of 750,000 to 3,000,000 depending of course on density.
Trams are nice for urban street riders but anything for rapid transit it should be LRT.
It also depends on the type of the LRT. Many are just glorified trams/streetcars with fewer stops and ROW like Toronto's Spadina/Harbourfront line. Some are very fast with total road separation with large subway typre stations, park & rides, and to avoid street traffic tunnels and bridges over roadways when needed and service both inner city and surban riders well like Calgary's CTrain often considered the most successful in NA. The CTrain services the city much like a Metro but without the incredible costs. The Ctrain's 42km has only cost $630milCDN and has extremly high ridership.

I should have also mentioned that the CTrain has the same frequency of most subways, every 6 minutes all day and every 8 minutes in the evenings.