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 December 2nd, 2007, 01:03 AM   #1641
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Actually, I agree about the name. I can't believe that Hampton Roads Transit actually paid a consultant $75,000 to come up with that. My guess is that people will refer to it as the Tidewater Trolley just as the light rail system in San Diego is known as the Tijuana Trolley.

Regarding the paint scheme, the thing that probably makes the most sense for a light rail line is to paint at least the ends of the trains in a high visibility such as red or yellow. The following are a few of examples where this has been done:

Minneapolis


San Diego


Dallas
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 2nd, 2007, 01:51 AM   #1642
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Even though Link's trains are pretty good-looking, i'd still prefer Portland MAX's old and new trains.
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2007, 04:10 AM   #1643
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daguy View Post
Not to mention that the government has said it will cost more like 900 million to build now thanks to increased construction costs. Seriously I do not oppose LRT, but for this corridor Skytrain is a much better idea. LRT if used should be for Surrey and Langely.
Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2007, 08:35 AM   #1644
citruspastels
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 3

Hey, if you guys want help give our elected officials a kick in the pants about light rail, send a letter!

From Carless in Seattle-

Elected official's contact info:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007...s-to-your.html

If you wish, a letter template:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007...s-on-tran.html

We have got to keep the pressure on if we want to see results from these people.
citruspastels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2007, 09:10 PM   #1645
Daguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 295
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.
Oh sorry my comment came off that way. It was supposed to be more additive than anything, and yes I would agree LRT is better than BRT. Too bad it is crappy LRT that they are looking at building. The time saving seems pretty minimal for a $900 million dollar investment.

If they decide to go for the Southern Route I'm pretty sure they will switch to Skytrain because the wider Lougheed Highway has more space, and the route could be mostly, if not all elevated for cheaper than the Northern route, and no tunnels should be required. Of course they will need a lot of rezoning for higher density developments which should be initiated during the construction so we arn't left with route that has 90% of its bordings at Coquitlam Centre.

Last edited by Daguy; December 2nd, 2007 at 09:17 PM.
Daguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2007, 09:50 PM   #1646
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.
Skytrain IS light rail with 3rd rail. They are both the same technology and the only difference is the power runs on the 3rd rail.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2007, 09:52 PM   #1647
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

the waves represents that we live in waterey metro area aka puget sound. That's why there are waves graphics on the train.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2007, 01:21 AM   #1648
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
Skytrain IS light rail with 3rd rail. They are both the same technology and the only difference is the power runs on the 3rd rail.
By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2007, 01:38 AM   #1649
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daguy View Post
Oh sorry my comment came off that way. It was supposed to be more additive than anything, and yes I would agree LRT is better than BRT. Too bad it is crappy LRT that they are looking at building. The time saving seems pretty minimal for a $900 million dollar investment.

If they decide to go for the Southern Route I'm pretty sure they will switch to Skytrain because the wider Lougheed Highway has more space, and the route could be mostly, if not all elevated for cheaper than the Northern route, and no tunnels should be required. Of course they will need a lot of rezoning for higher density developments which should be initiated during the construction so we arn't left with route that has 90% of its bordings at Coquitlam Centre.
Oh, don't worry, you didn't come off badly! I think that the zoning will come naturally with LRT, and you'll eventually see the corridor in SkyTrain in a few decades when it's built out. The boardings when the route opens don't matter much in 20-30 years.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2007, 01:40 AM   #1650
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by citruspastels View Post
Hey, if you guys want help give our elected officials a kick in the pants about light rail, send a letter!

From Carless in Seattle-

Elected official's contact info:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007...s-to-your.html

If you wish, a letter template:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007...s-on-tran.html

We have got to keep the pressure on if we want to see results from these people.
Too bad Carless in Seattle is such a douche. I've actually had discussions with the guy a couple of times on the way to work, and he's really an ideologue to the point where you don't want to put him in front of public officials at all, because he'll stick his foot in his mouth.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2007, 05:01 AM   #1651
citruspastels
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 3

that's too bad. doesn't change the fact that we need to get the fire lit beneath our politician's asses to get them to move on this issue now.

damn yoooou ron sims!!! we want rail!
citruspastels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2007, 06:28 PM   #1652
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.
Yeah. They're all just trains. The real distinction should just be in the level of service provided, rather than how they're powered, etc. Trains. Just trains.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 05:42 AM   #1653
Daguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 295
Likes (Received): 0



Yeah I see where you guys are going. It's just a little hard for me to see Skytrain as light rail compared to when I rode the C-train in Calgary and the LRT in Edmonton. Most systems seen as "light rail" arn't fully grade separated and automated.
Daguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 06:34 AM   #1654
spongeg
Registered User
 
spongeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 8,030
Likes (Received): 1731

there is heavy rail and there is light rail though

i couldn't tell you the difference other than having ridden on some Heavy rail trains they are much wider and bigger than the LRT train cars
spongeg está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 07:39 AM   #1655
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

And faster (comparing Taipei's metro and Portland's light rail, probably inaccurate though).
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 08:21 AM   #1656
Plumber73
I need coffee.
 
Plumber73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,442
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.
High-floor???
__________________
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan.
Plumber73 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 09:18 AM   #1657
citruspastels
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 3

from my understanding light rail refers to a system that is-
A) Passenger rail
B) Can run on non-grade seperated track
citruspastels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2007, 02:48 PM   #1658
Tcmetro
Registered User
 
Tcmetro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis/Chicago
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 17

Subways and Heavy Rail are different in the fact that they usually almost exclusively use tunnels and elevated sections, while LRT tends to have street running sections. Also LRT doesn't have turnstyles, and most subways do.
__________________
metrology
Tcmetro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 01:46 AM   #1659
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Ah back to the distinction argument:

From what I have experienced and read:

Light Rail and Heavy Rail. Compare it to a metro bus and a long-rage greyhound bus.

Light Rail is generally used as an urban commuter, which generally travels at grade or above grade, with the ability and FLEXIBILITY to travel through streets. They typically do NOT have the ability to continually add train cars like heavy rail. They generally have a lower cost. The American Public Transportation Authority defines it as "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." The electric railway part has a few exceptions because many light rail systems are powered by diesel. To me, it is a step lower than subway systems such as the ones in L.A.

Heavy Rail

With a few exceptions, most have higher capacities and they are able to increase the number of cars that each train can take. With a few exceptions, heavy rail trains are generally designed to go faster, but they are less flexible in terms of right of way. How did Japan and France figure out how to lay out their rail system? I don't know, but whatever they did, it's working very well. Heavy rail is built to serve areas with high density.

To sum it up, light rail has the flexibility in right of way, while heavy rail has the flexibility of capacity. Every rail system is designed differently with different needs and demands to be met, so the generalizations will not always apply. But the clearest distinction for me is their differences in flexibility.

Light Rail: Anywhere between 1 to approximately 4 train cars.
Heavy Rail: As much as the infrastructure can handle.

Last edited by HAWC1506; December 6th, 2007 at 01:22 AM.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2007, 05:22 AM   #1660
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
Ah back to the distinction argument:

From what I have experienced and read:

Light Rail and Heavy Rail. Compare it to a metro bus and a long-rage greyhound bus.

Light Rail is generally used as an urban commuter, which generally travels at grade or above grade, with the ability and FLEXIBILITY to travel through streets. They typically do NOT have the ability to continually add train cars like heavy rail. They generally have a lower cost. The American Public Transportation Authority defines it as "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." The electric railway part has a few exceptions because many light rail systems are powered by diesel. To me, it is a step lower than subway systems such as the ones in L.A.

Heavy Rail

With a few exceptions, most have higher capacities and they are able to increase the number of cars that each train can take. With a few exceptions, heavy rail trains are generally designed to go faster, but they are less flexible in terms of right of way. How did Japan and France figure out how to lay out their rail system? I don't know, but whatever they did, it's working very well. Heavy rail is built to serve areas with high density.

To sum it up, light rail has the flexibility in right of way, while heavy rail has the flexibility of capacity. Every rail system is designed differently with different needs and demands to be met, so the generalizations will not always apply. But the clearest distinction for me is their differences in flexibility.

Light Rail: Anywhere between 1 to approximately 6 train cars.
Heavy Rail: As much as the infrastructure can handle.
And skytrain is third rail, which should end this debate right here.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
king county metro, seattle, sound transit, us light rail

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 10:18 AM.


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