LRT vs. BRT

To built more Rapid Transit, it should be BRT rather than LRT. Bus Rapid Transit is simply cheaper per mile, which means more of it for the same price.

LRT's advantages are as much political as technical.

First: LRT's primary advantage is that it can use rail corridors to achieve rapid transit status. Cars can't use railway right of way, so there is no competition with cars. This advantage is not limited to LRT. As both the BRT tunnels in Pittsburgh and the Orange line in LA have shown, BRT can use railway right of way quite well. Buses, driven by professionally trained drivers, can pass each easily in 22' (11' per bus). I recall the buses in Eugene, Oregon, coming scarily close. (Railway right of way is only ~22' wide at different points, which is too narrow for even two lanes of car traffic 10' lane + 10' lane + 8' safety area + 8' safety area). Word on the street is that international Fire Code mandates 26' of clear space as necessary for emergency operations.

Second, LRT vehicles are heavier, so they stop more slowly, which makes sharing a lane with cars much more dangerous, especially at high speeds, and consequently less likely to happen.A train in a highway median gets to keep its separated guide-way, and no crank(y) politician can change that. BRT 'Freeway Flyers' (BRT in an exclusive freeway lane) inevitably become BRT in a HOT lane, with consequent degradation in speed and reliability. Trains don't have the problem.

There may be one area where LRT has an actual advantage: Elevated track, with very right clearances. There have been experiments with 'guided' BRT, using things like optical sensors, guidewheels, or specially constructed guide-track. 'The Gap' between vehicle and platform can be an issue, and I'm not sure how well BRT does in that regard.

However, a 'train' portion (exclusive/separated) guideway is expensive. Denver, Seattle, and LA all achieved it by putting light rail in freeway medians. LA is increasing achieving it through the use of elevated lines (albeit at very high prices). Seattle has tunneled, at a cost of over a hundred million dollars a mile.

Previously, I've talked only about 'Rapid' transit in separated/exclusive guide-way. If we want to talk streetcars, it's only fair to compare them with their wheel counterpart, buses. The advantage of streetcar is (again) political. Chambers of Commerce like streetcars, due to their permanency. They are also cheaper and less politically fraught. A 'tram'-type light rail (AKA street-car) is cheap, because it runs in dedicated/mixed traffic right of way. So there is no need to take right of way from cars, or eliminate parking. But this type of right of way comes with costs. It makes the service slow and unreliable--it's like a bus on steel wheels.

Streetcars are also (politically) easier to build, because the FTA helps pay for them. Streetcars can get 50% FTA funding for capital expenses, such as vehicles, TSP, and station platforms. There is no reason a bus couldn't enjoy these same benefits.

Schedule Span

Catching up on Wikipedia transit updates, I happened across this chart of annual ridership, and ridership on a per-mile basis.  While I was pleased as punch about TRAX's success (#9 in the nation), I was less psyched about the ridership per mile. Reading up on other systems, something about the Seattle's 'Central Link' struck me--"Service operates seven days a week, from 5 am to 1 am Monday through Saturday and from 6 am to midnight on Sundays".

I spent most of last night reading chapter 3 of the 'Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition'. One of the ideas it brought to my attention was the idea of 'schedule span', which is the transit equivalent of hours of operation. The Central Link is operating 20 hours a day. TRAX calls it quit at about 10:30-11, and it starts later! I think that's reflected in the per-mile ridership numbers--almost 2000 vs. just over 1500 daily riders/mile. Central Link is 33% higher than TRAX, for ~33% higher hours.

I've previously commented on the lack of late-night service for TRAX, which (as one commenter noted) has actually been declining over time. Anyone who has read the history of transit is familiar with the ridership sabotaging effects of reducing service. Less service means fewer riders, which means less money, which means less service---it's a downward spiral.

Miles of track are expensive, running between $60m and $100m per mile. We should make as much use of it as possible.