daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 4th, 2014, 06:46 PM   #1341
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
BRT and LRT can share lanes. Might not be ideal, but it can be done if the alternative (moving buses to a saturated road) is worse.
IDK, it seems to work wonderfully in SF. Of all the places I've visited in the US, I think SF and LA handle their bus networks the best (they're virtually like subways on wheels - pretty punctual, good bus stops/shelters, countdown clocks, etc). The biggest thing is that they're slow[er in LA]. I don't know how much will there is to actual separate buses from general traffic...
__________________
MCRP '16
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 4th, 2014, 07:03 PM   #1342
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,529
Likes (Received): 21233

Buses are inherently technologically inferior to light rail and trams. A train that relied so much for safety and control on the input of a single driver (engineer) would be never allowed to enter commercial service.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2014, 07:24 PM   #1343
redspork02
Registered User
 
redspork02's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,205
Likes (Received): 815

MTA approves study to convert Metro Orange Line to light rail

http://www.dailynews.com/general-new...-to-light-rail

The MTA has given the go-ahead on a study about converting the Metro Orange Line busway to a light-rail line. Just-signed state legislation lifted a 23-year-ban on non-subway transit construction. (2013 file photo by Hans Gutknecht/Los Angeles Daily News)

By Rick Orlov, Los Angeles Daily News

Calling the San Fernando Valley one of the most underserved areas in the county for public transit, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Thursday authorized a study on changing the Orange Line busway into a light-rail system.

“One of five county residents lives in the San Fernando Valley, and yet of the 80 rail stations in the system, only two are in the Valley,” said Councilman Paul Krekorian, who serves on the Metro board.

“It is clear today that the Valley has not benefited to the degree of other areas. At the same time, the Orange Line has been a phenomenal success, putting to rest the unfair stereotype that Valley residents will not get out of their cars.”



Krekorian *— with support from Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is the chairman, and other board members — won unanimous passage of his proposal to have the Metro staff report back on what would be involved in costs, construction and timing of changing the Orange Line to a light-rail system.
“I think we should have this dialogue,” Krekorian said. “I believe we can’t delay any further to meet the underserved needs of the San Fernando Valley.”

The study is possible due to recent state legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown and authored by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, that lifts the 23-year ban on any transit construction unless it is for a subway.



Councilman Bob Blumenfield, who represents the Warner Center area, said the transit improvements are badly needed.

“My perspective is from the West Valley that is growing by leaps and bounds,” Blumenfield said. “We just signed the new Warner Center specific plan that will bring in 30,000 new jobs. All of this is being built as transit-oriented development, yet our only transit system is the Orange Line. It is imperative we look at increasing its capacity.

“It can make a tremendous difference on the entire city. This is about feeding the economic engine of the West Valley.”


The proposal also drew support from a variety of speakers.

Stuart Waldman, president of VICA, said the project would be an initial investment in other Valley-wide transit improvements.

“In some ways, the Orange Line has been a victim of its own success,” Waldman said. “It suffers from overcrowding, and the only way to get more people off the 101 Freeway is with a light rail system.”

Plans to be studied would convert the 18 miles of the Orange Line system from Chatsworth to North Hollywood into light rail, with a goal of eventually linking it to other rail systems in the county.



In related actions, the board Thursday approved its 10-year Short-Range Transportation Plan, which lays out specific steps toward reaching the goals of 2009’s 30-year vision for fielding growth and traffic issues in the county.

Members also recommended awarding a $1.6 billion contract to construct the Westside subway to the joint venture of Skanska-Traylor-Shea, despite indications of protests against the deal.

One of the firms competing for the contract, Dragados, said it submitted the lowest bid but that MTA officials chose to ignore that with its recommendation. The contract will not be executed until any protests are resolved.
__________________
L O S A N G E L E S - - - 2028 - "FOLLOW THE SUN"

IT'S TIME FOR DODGER BASEBALL!!

dimlys1994, MarshallKnight liked this post
redspork02 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2014, 12:34 AM   #1344
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Buses are inherently technologically inferior to light rail and trams. A train that relied so much for safety and control on the input of a single driver (engineer) would be never allowed to enter commercial service.
???
I've never been on a lightrail train that had more than one driver. Most older lightrail systems rely on train drivers observing signal lights, much like bus drivers observing traffic lights.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2014, 01:36 PM   #1345
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,337
Likes (Received): 26123

From The Source, draft environmental document released for Eastside Gold Line phase 2 project. Map of alternatives:

dimlys1994 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014, 02:49 PM   #1346
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspork02 View Post
MTA approves study to convert Metro Orange Line to light rail
I'll just blurt it out: Yes, the Orange Line needs more capacity. Yes, it should've been built as rail. But I can't imagine that enduring the disruption caused by tearing up concrete pavement and installing rails would be worth the trouble, let alone the expense. Why not go for one of those usually-goofy rubber tired tram systems? Maybe throw in a few grade separations where they can be built without disrupting service?
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014, 04:10 PM   #1347
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,960
Likes (Received): 6073

I imagine they could just bolt those rails right onto the concrete. But big parts of the busway is made of asphalt I think. Only at intersections they would need to alter the concrete.
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014, 06:03 PM   #1348
Arnorian
Registered User
 
Arnorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Moesia Superior
Posts: 2,735
Likes (Received): 14602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
Why not go for one of those usually-goofy rubber tired tram systems?
Rubber-tired trams don't exist. You're thinking of trolleybuses. They offer no advantage apart from reduction in polution and energy consumption. To increase capacity longer vehicles are needed.
__________________
I know the pieces fit cause I watched them fall away
Arnorian está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014, 07:51 PM   #1349
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnorian View Post
Rubber-tired trams don't exist. You're thinking of trolleybuses. They offer no advantage apart from reduction in polution and energy consumption. To increase capacity longer vehicles are needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_...rolleybuses.29
__________________

MarshallKnight liked this post
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2014, 10:19 PM   #1350
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnorian View Post
Rubber-tired trams don't exist. You're thinking of trolleybuses. They offer no advantage apart from reduction in polution and energy consumption. To increase capacity longer vehicles are needed.
How do they reduce energy consumption? I always though that trolleybuses/translorhs consume marginally more electricity due to higher rolling resistance.
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 12:07 AM   #1351
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

And they ride worse.

And the cost for translohrs is about the same as LRT (light installations).
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 01:13 AM   #1352
Arnorian
Registered User
 
Arnorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Moesia Superior
Posts: 2,735
Likes (Received): 14602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
Calling them "trams" doesn't make them trams, they're still trolleybuses. That's why that term is given with quotation marks in the article you linked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XAN_ View Post
How do they reduce energy consumption? I always though that trolleybuses/translorhs consume marginally more electricity due to higher rolling resistance.
I meant that their overall energy consumption is lower than buses', because of the greater conversion efficacy of the power plants compared to internal combustion engines.
__________________
I know the pieces fit cause I watched them fall away
Arnorian está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 02:07 AM   #1353
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Well, if we're gonna have a quote battle...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnorian
To increase capacity longer vehicles are needed.
So, there ya go. To me, it's not terribly relevant whether they're called "rubber tired trams" or "immensely long trolleybuses."

We'll see what the study says, I guess.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 02:26 AM   #1354
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,960
Likes (Received): 6073

Here's a video on it narrated by a Metro spokesperson:
__________________

phoenixboi08, CNB30, jonasry, redspork02, Kenni liked this post
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 06:12 AM   #1355
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnorian View Post
...
I meant that their overall energy consumption is lower than buses', because of the greater conversion efficacy of the power plants compared to internal combustion engines.
Judging the energy efficiency of bus systems versus rail systems is tricky. Rail systems are more likely to have stations that are elevated or underground. The energy consumed by elevators, escalators, and lighting systems can easily offset any energy savings from the greater efficiency of the electric propulsion system of a train.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 06:44 AM   #1356
CNB30
centralnatbankbuildingrva
 
CNB30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York (Brooklyn)/Richmond/Philadelphia
Posts: 2,575
Likes (Received): 805

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Judging the energy efficiency of bus systems versus rail systems is tricky. Rail systems are more likely to have stations that are elevated or underground. The energy consumed by elevators, escalators, and lighting systems can easily offset any energy savings from the greater efficiency of the electric propulsion system of a train.
Yet they have pros that exponentially outweigh Buses.
__________________
High speed rail=real energy independence!

A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation

Feel The Bern #2016
CNB30 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 01:03 PM   #1357
Arnorian
Registered User
 
Arnorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Moesia Superior
Posts: 2,735
Likes (Received): 14602

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Judging the energy efficiency of bus systems versus rail systems is tricky. Rail systems are more likely to have stations that are elevated or underground. The energy consumed by elevators, escalators, and lighting systems can easily offset any energy savings from the greater efficiency of the electric propulsion system of a train.
I was talking about buses vs trolleybuses.

I don't believe that escalators and lighting can use so much to change the overall consumption. Electrically driven vehicles can have regenerative braking too, returning a lot of their kinetic energy back to the grid when stopping.
__________________
I know the pieces fit cause I watched them fall away
Arnorian está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2014, 06:07 PM   #1358
dimlys1994
Moderator
 
dimlys1994's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dniepropetrovsk
Posts: 16,337
Likes (Received): 26123

Progress at Anaheim:



__________________

redspork02, phoenixboi08, xXFallenXx liked this post
dimlys1994 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2014, 03:05 AM   #1359
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnorian View Post
...
I don't believe that escalators and lighting can use so much to change the overall consumption. Electrically driven vehicles can have regenerative braking too, returning a lot of their kinetic energy back to the grid when stopping.
I am aware of one study that evaluated the energy usage of BRT, light rail, and heavy rail in the same corridor. The study was performed for the connector between the future Warm Springs BART station and downtown San Jose. I believe the BRT option would have used buses powered by natural gas. In terms of net energy savings, BRT beat LRT, but heavy rail (BART) was the overall winner. The numbers are as follows:

Net Change in Regional Energy Consumption (BTUs)
Busway BRT: -1,297,871
LRT: -1,016,665
BART: -1,482,662

Other comparisons from the study are provided below.

Average Weekday Ridership (Year 2025)
Busway BRT: 49,100
LRT: 56,600
BART: 87,200

New Trips (Year 2025)
Busway BRT: 35,600
LRT: 37,700
BART: 60,600

Capital Cost (2001 dollars in millions)
Busway BRT: $1,155
LRT: $1,514
BART: $3,710

Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost (2001 dollars in millions)
Busway BRT: $19.5
LRT: $41.8
BART: $63.0

Farebox Recovery
Busway BRT: 21.8%
LRT: 20.8%
BART: 64.4%

Cost per New Rider
Busway BRT: $11.40
LRT: $14.75
BART: $19.36

Daily Trips Removed from Roadways
Busway BRT: 30,791
LRT: 29,006
BART: 51,747

Daily Travel Time Savings (Hours Saved)
Busway BRT: 74,931
LRT: 71,117
BART: 153,913

Net Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons)
Busway BRT: -175,612
LRT: -121,813
BART: -151,208

Net Change in Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons)
Busway BRT: -773
LRT: -625
BART: -1,211

Net Change in Regional Energy Consumption (BTUs)
Busway BRT: -1,297,871
LRT: -1,016,665
BART: -1,482,662

Level of Noise/Vibration Impacts (Potential # Residential Impacts)
Busway BRT: 254
LRT: 707
BART: 321
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2014, 05:00 AM   #1360
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Some of these numbers (such as net change in GGE) look a little suspect.

And this is only one example anyway.

Examine Portland and Seattle. It may be enlightening.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium