Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. March 2015

Similar documents
Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. February 2015

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

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

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

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

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

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

Transit on the New NY Bridge

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

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

Public Meeting. March 21, 2013 Mimosa Elementary School

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Initial Screening Analysis

Chapter 4 : THEME 2. Transportation

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

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

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ROLES

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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

Needs and Community Characteristics

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

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

BRT: What is it & Where Does it Fit? Sam Zimmerman

Program Overview. February 2018

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

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

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

Where will. BRT run? BRT will serve 20 stations along the line, connecting to bus routes and serving major destinations. How often will service run?

Fresno County. Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Public Workshop

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

What IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY

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

Central Loop Bus Rapid Transit

Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder July 2017

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

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

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

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

Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars?

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

Location Concept Plan Amendment Recommendation Approved 2011 Concept Plan

Stakeholders Advisory Working Group Traffic and Transit Group Meeting #4, October 10, 2007

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

1.0 Detailed Definition of Alternatives

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

State Avenue Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Presentation Overview. Stop, Station, and Terminal Capacity

WELCOME TO BLUE HILL AVENUE STATION PUBLIC MEETING October 5, 2016

2.0 Development Driveways. Movin Out June 2017

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Technology Evaluation Scorecard Suitability

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

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

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

Bus Rapid Transit. Jennifer Flynn and Cheryl Thole Senior Research Associates Commuter Choice Workshop January 2012 Tampa, FL

1 Downtown LRT Connector: Draft Concept

CNG Strategy/Overview

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Key Issues Memo

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

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

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

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

What is the Connector?

GO Transit s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

Naval Station Norfolk Transit Extension Study. January 7, 2015

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

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

Troost Corridor Transit Study

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

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

Transit on the SC Rail Corridor

Museum Campus Transportation Study Open House.

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

Denver Metro Association of Realtors

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

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

MicroRail Alternate to Light Rail

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

Streetcar Level Boarding Background Memo

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

Measure R Funded Transit Projects

Detailed Definition of Alternatives

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

Bus Rapid Transit: Basic Design for Non-Transit Planners

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

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

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN DECEMBER 2016 STRATEGIC MOBILITY PLAN MOBILITY OPTIONS & CORRIDORS

The Implications of Automated Vehicles for the Public Transit Industry

LEED v4 Building Design and Construction Quiz #3 LT

Transcription:

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences March 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; typically 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

Streetcar vs Local Bus Similar speed, operating environment, station/stop spacing Streetcars provide greater capacity, and are more likely than buses to Provide level-boarding Feature off-board fare collection Provide a more stable, comfortable ride Be more easily understood through system branding, visible route maps, etc. (especially for non-frequent transit users) Spark developer interest, due to permanence of infrastructure Buses provide operating flexibility Not fixed to guideway 16