Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. February 2015

Similar documents
Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. March 2015

Public Meeting. June 15, :30 7:30 p.m.

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Great Lakes Community February 11, 2016

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

FACT SHEET. US 192 Alternatives Analysis Modal Technologies. Alternative Description/Overview

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Medlock Area Neighborhood Association (MANA) February 15, 2016

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Policy Advisory Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

I-20 EAST TRANSIT INITIATIVE Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Overview of Rapid Transit Typical Characteristics. Date April 30, 2009

Fresno County. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Public Workshop

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

Herding Cats; Strategies used for KC Downtown Streetcar Utility Coordination ASCE Transportation Conference

Public Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

1 Downtown LRT Connector: Draft Concept

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

Van Ness Transit Corridor Improvement Project. Engineering, Maintenance and Safety Committee March 25, 2015

Chapter 4 : THEME 2. Transportation

Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars?

2018 Long Range Development Plan Update Community Advisory Group- February 21, 2018

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Initial Screening Analysis

West Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015

Program Overview. February 2018

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES GENERAL. 1. Description

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

Station Evaluation. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Spring 2012

CTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016

COMMISSION WORKSHOP Tuesday, May 12, :00 a.m. 12:00 p.m.

T-THIRD PHASE 3 CONCEPT STUDY C: DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF CONCEPT ALIGNMENTS D: CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS AND COST ESTIMATES (HNTB CONSULTANTS)

Don Elliott, FAICP Clarion Associates, Denver, CO Pace Land Use Law Conference, White Plains December 2017

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

Central Loop Bus Rapid Transit

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ROLES

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

Minnesota Autonomous Shuttle. NACV Summit June 12, 2018

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Location Concept Plan Amendment Recommendation Approved 2011 Concept Plan

12/10/2018. December 6, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

I-35W Past, Present, and Future: METRO Orange Line

Streetcar Level Boarding Background Memo

Transit on the New NY Bridge

CTA Blue Line Study Area

Measure R Funded Transit Projects

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Key Issues Memo

QUALITY OF LIFE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT I O N S TAT I O N

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Jeff s House. Downtown Charlottesville. PEC Office

Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension Study. January 7, 2015

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional

REPORTER. The term rail transit encompasses. Riding the Rails: Light-Rail Transit Market Areas in the Twin Cities. In This Issue:

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit

Toolbox Transit Presentation Professors Joseph DiJohn and Siim Sööt University of Illinois at Chicago

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

Design of Parking Facilities. Design of Parking Facilities. Location of Parking Facilities

2.0 Development Driveways. Movin Out June 2017

Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder July 2017

Needs and Community Characteristics

Transitioning to Integrated Sustainable Multi-mobility. A Model Climate Action Strategy

6/11/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Capital Metro Downtown Multimodal Station

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT MOUNT EDEN ROAD, MOUNT EDEN

Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report

Appendix F-1 Description of the Long-Term Alternatives

Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study Public Meetings

School Bus Driver Inservice TITLE OF LESSON: RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS Objectives of Lesson: At the end of this lesson the student will:

Traffic Safety & Fire Safety Can the Conflicts Be Reconciled? Patrick Siegman Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. Community Meetings April/May, 2012

Troost Corridor Transit Study

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

Informal Business Discussion Minutes Tuesday, May 3, :00 PM 1. Transportation

Detailed Definition of Alternatives

Presentation Overview. Stop, Station, and Terminal Capacity

EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD, OREGON EAST WEST PILOT BRT LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT

CTA Blue Line Study Area

Mass Transit in Charlotte and San Antonio. Keith T. Parker, AICP

Green Line opens June 14

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

Development of 220 mph High Speed Rail Service for Illinois. Mark C. Walbrun, PE TranSystems Corporation

Current Corridor Characteristics. MN 62 Corridor Performance

DOWNTOWN CONCORD SPECIFIC PLAN

Rail~Volution 2012 R. Gregg Albright

Calgary Transit and the Calgary Transportation Plan Chris Jordan, M.Sc., P.Eng. Coordinator, Strategic Transit Planning, Calgary Transit

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

engineering phase and during the procurement of design build contracts.

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Breakout Session. The Mobility Challenges of Our Growing & Sprawling Upstate

Transcription:

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences February 2015

How Are Streetcar and Light Rail Different? The design differences between streetcar and light rail are tied to the distinctions in the markets served by each technology. 2

What Markets Are Best Served by Each Technology? Streetcar Intended for short connections within a compact urban setting Focus is on local access and circulation a walk extender MARKETS SERVED Light Rail Intended for longerdistance trips across a city or from suburbs into city Focus is on regional mobility 3

How Do Markets Affect the Design Differences? Markets Served Long or short-distance trips? Circulation within a place, or moving between places? Quick walk-up access or large capture area? Design Differences Type of right-of-way Station spacing and design Type of vehicle Track design Power source Signals and control 4

Key Design Differences Streetcar Does not require its own right-of-way Typically shares lanes with autos in mixed traffic (like a bus) Must avoid in-street utility conflicts RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK Light Rail Typically has own rightof-way, with limited interaction with autos and fewer utility conflicts Can operate in its own corridor or in-street (separated from autos) POWER SOURCE SIGNALS AND CONTROL 5

Key Design Differences Streetcar Stations (stops) every 2-3 blocks Simple platforms at a lower height blend into urban streetscape Intended for walk-up access RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK POWER SOURCE Light Rail Stations every 1-2 miles Larger stations to serve longer trains Some stations have park-and-ride access Higher platforms enable level boarding SIGNALS AND CONTROL 6

Key Design Differences Streetcar Smaller and more nimble than light rail Operates as single car Typical length = 60-70 Speed = up to 40 mph Capacity = 120-150 (seated + standing) RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK Light Rail Larger vehicles (for higher capacities) Can connect 2-4 cars Typical length = 90-100 Speed = up to 60 mph Capacity = 170-200 (seated + standing) POWER SOURCE SIGNALS AND CONTROL 7

Key Design Differences Streetcar Shallow (12 deep) concrete track slab Can make tighter turns than light rail Lots of interaction with peds and bicycles RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK Light Rail Ballasted track or slab Larger vehicles require wider turns Focus on limiting interaction with autos / peds / bicycles POWER SOURCE SIGNALS AND CONTROL 8

Key Design Differences Streetcar Single contact wire over each track Emerging off-wire technology Smaller substations RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK Light Rail Double-wire overhead contact system Limited off-wire options Larger substations POWER SOURCE SIGNALS AND CONTROL 9

Key Design Differences Streetcar Obeys existing traffic signals; no special signalization No special train controls required due to slow speeds RIGHT OF WAY STATION SPACING AND TYPE OF VEHICLE TRACK Light Rail Typically has own signalization system for safety at grade crossings Separation between trains maintained by control system POWER SOURCE SIGNALS AND CONTROL 10

It Doesn t Have to be Either / Or The same line may have varying design features on different segments Example: Street-running segments with closer station spacing in downtown (like streetcar) and dedicated ROW in suburbs (like light rail) Some design elements of a line may be more like light rail, while others are more like streetcar Example: Norfolk light rail operates in singlecar trains with limited train controls (like streetcar), but operates in dedicated ROW with wider station spacing (like light rail). 11

The Streetcar / Light Rail Design Continuum Portland, OR Streetcar In-street running Shared lanes with auto traffic Simple platform stops Single vehicles Obeys regular traffic signals Blends in with existing neighborhoods Level of Infrastructure Less substantive / less complex More substantive / More complex 12

The Streetcar / Light Rail Design Continuum Norfolk, VA Street-Running Light Rail Operates in street ROW, but typically in own dedicated lane Stations blend into streetscape Single or multiple vehicles Interaction with traffic at intersections Level of Infrastructure Less substantive / less complex More substantive / More complex 13

The Streetcar / Light Rail Design Continuum Light Rail in Exclusive ROW Operates in own dedicated lane Significant stations Single or multiple vehicles Limited interaction with autos (grade separations or at-grade crossings) Minneapolis, MN Level of Infrastructure Less substantive / less complex More substantive / More complex 14

How to Know Which Rail Technology is Appropriate? What markets are you trying to serve? Length of trips Regional mobility vs. local access Potential customers What types of ROW are available? Dedicated corridors In-street options 15