Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
WAngell
Block E
Posts: 17
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 7:53 am

Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby WAngell » October 12th, 2016, 11:16 am

I'm doing a quick deal on Portland's tram system. Does anyone know how it compares performance wise to our LRT? EG, how fast you can traverse 1 mile or some other comparative measure? Cost per passenger mile to build and maintain it?

In theory our LRT s/b faster but it didn't seem that way. I wish I'd taken some time measurements while I was there.

Thanks,

Walker

kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 179
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby kellonathan » October 12th, 2016, 12:08 pm

Are we talking Portland Streetcar? or TriMet MAX light rail?
Jonathan Ahn, AICP | [email protected]
Personal thoughts and personal opinion only. May include incomplete information.

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1138
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby mplsjaromir » October 12th, 2016, 1:40 pm

I wrote this two+ years ago:


The conversation regarding whether a streetcar or LRT was more appropriate for this corridor got me thinking. Portland's streetcar was brought up as a comparison. I did an admittedly amateur comparison of the two line's construction.

Green Line - 9.8 miles of new track - 47 vehicles (200 passengers per vehicle) - $957 million (2014 dollars)
Portland Streetcar - 7.35 miles of track - 15 vehicles (157 passengers per vehicle) - $284.59 million (2014 dollars)

Looking at the pure mileage of track laid Portland seems to be the clear winner. 75% of track miles for 30% of the cost. But from what I ascertained about the line I can see where the old adage 'you get what you pay for' comes into play.

First PSC has several sections that are single tracked, a cost saving measure to be sure. Because of this frequencies on the line at their peak, are 17 minutes (although they appear to have a functioning NexTrip like system). GL LRT operates at peak 10 minute frequencies. Probably cannot increase due to congestion on 5th Street in downtown Minneapolis.

Secondly examine average speeds. GL LRT has been maligned for being too darn slow. It is scheduled to run at 13.75mph, clearly it has not always performed at that speed. Oftentimes being as slow as 10mph or less. In Portland on the PSC the CL line is scheduled to run at 3.82mph (27.8% the speed of GL LRT) and the NS line is scheduled to run at 3.2mph (23% the speed of GL LRT). One can see where the cost savings show up.

Capacity, the GL LRT can utilize 39 vehicles at any given time, each with a maximum capacity of 200 riders. That equates to 7800 riders using the line at one time. PSC in theory could put all fifteen of their vehicles and serve 2355 passengers. PSC stations are built to serve only a single vehicle at a time, even if technically possible to couple vehicles together, the built infrastructure does not warrant that type of operation. Spend less money, receive less utility.

From what I can tell only the PSC Lowell (.4 miles) and Riverplace (.6 miles) extensions included road reconstructions into their capital budgets. GL LRT included street and sidewalks improvements along the entire corridor, necessary, but not free.

Last but not least ridership. PSC has 13,100 daily riders, GL LRT 40,445. In other words PSC more a decade since initial operation generates 32.38% the ridership of GL LRT with less than a quarter year of operation.

This post is not meant to denigrate Portland's Streetcar or streetcars in general. Nor is it meant to absolve Metro Transit or the FTA. I think one has to critically look what was built and determine if worth the trouble. My position I think echoes others on this forum, the majority of the heavy lifting has been done. The bridge work (35W flyover, Washington Ave) , three car stations along the entire route, 18.3" track slab. Changes to stoplight timing and priority can be adjusted, if the need arises and political will coalesces, grade separation in critical areas can be built. The Green Line with its 24 hour operation and strong early ridership numbers show that useful transit can be built. Now if we could only figure out how the Spanish build tunnels so cheaply...

PSC Budget
CL Line
NS Line

WAngell
Block E
Posts: 17
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 7:53 am

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby WAngell » October 13th, 2016, 5:58 am

@kellonathan, sort of both but primarily streetcar. Our LRT seems (to me) to fall somewhere between a standard Tram (streetcar in US) and a commuter rail. Located in street ROW like tram but with some dedicated ROW. Faster than a tram, not as fast as commuter. Stop spacing about the same as tram/streetcar? Station platforms much larger than tram and closer in size and mass to commuter rail? ROW requirements greater than tram and very close to commuter rail.

@mplsjaromir, exactly. Is this posted anywhere that I can reference it? Are the line speeds such as 13.7 for GL an end-to-end average including all stops? Accurate to say that it would take 3 times as long to go from Mpls to St Paul with a system designed like Portland's?

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1138
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby mplsjaromir » October 13th, 2016, 7:57 am

I had links on the original post, I guess they did not copy over.

kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 179
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby kellonathan » October 13th, 2016, 8:44 am

@kellonathan, sort of both but primarily streetcar. Our LRT seems (to me) to fall somewhere between a standard Tram (streetcar in US) and a commuter rail. Located in street ROW like tram but with some dedicated ROW. Faster than a tram, not as fast as commuter. Stop spacing about the same as tram/streetcar? Station platforms much larger than tram and closer in size and mass to commuter rail? ROW requirements greater than tram and very close to commuter rail.
  • Light Rail? Heavy Rail? Streetcar? Commuter Rail? : The term "Light Rail" is still going through an identity crisis, I believe. But however, light rails are much closer to its streetcars than commuter rails for various reasons. From an administrative side, commuter rails that are running on main line railroads are under FRA jurisdiction, whereas light rails, streetcars (trolleys) and urban metrorails(subways) are under FTA jurisdiction, thus governed by different rules.
  • ROW/Grade Separation/Stop Spacing : I think the big difference that's noticeable to most riders is the fact that most streetcars run with the traffic (sharing the lane and most signals) whilst LRT runs separately with its dedicated signal system. Our LRT mostly has dedicated ROW on the trunk corridors (Hiawatha Ave, University Ave) whereas Portland Streetcars have almost no dedicated ROW outside of Tilikum Crossing area. Both light rails and streetcars have very similar ROW requirement in terms of required lane width for its vehicle clearance. (10.5~12ft) I don't think I've personally seen any example of modern streetcar system with grade-separated ROW other than bridges, whereas, for example, Vancouver's SkyTrain (practically LRT) is mostly elevated. In terms of stop spacing, LRT mostly has stop spacing of 1/2mi to 1mi, whereas streetcars mostly follow stop spacing patterns of traditional urban bus services, stopping every 2 to 4 blocks (1/8mi to 1/4mi).
  • Platform Length : Modern streetcars (single car) mostly require 60-100ft, whilst LRT (multi-cars) in the Twin Cities requires at least 270ft for its platform---it mostly fits nicely in our existing downtown block sizes ranging about 300ft. Northstar platforms are 425ft at minimum, mostly designed with extension capability to 600ft at a minimum. (For comparison, typical NYC subway platforms are about 600ft long.) Platform width should be calculated based on service capacity (vehicle and frequency) and passengers' expected waiting time.
  • Compromises and Tradeoffs based on Urban Form : LRTs in the Twin Cities are de facto urban rail services that has a strong economic development kick to it---providing 'access' to jobs, businesses, and development opportunities while providing a reasonable mobility performance. It works well for the University Ave corridor, and it works pretty good for the Hiawatha Ave corridor. Portland Streetcars, however, are mostly for neighborhood revitalization and economic development, serving as a walk extender and/or urban circulator.
Jonathan Ahn, AICP | [email protected]
Personal thoughts and personal opinion only. May include incomplete information.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby talindsay » October 14th, 2016, 8:11 am

Our light rail system is 100% dedicated ROW - yes, the rails are physically in streets in many places, but they aren't driving lanes to be shared with other vehicles. I suppose one could argue it's not 100% dedicated since there is a stretch of about a tenth of a mile on the UMN campus where buses share the ROW, but that's another transit use and not a general driving lane. Also, I think that portion is incredibly stupid given that there's an actual driving lane right next to the track that cars aren't allowed to use either, but I digress.

The thing is, terms such as "tram", "light rail", and "streetcar" are vague terms. Heck, "metro", "subway", etc are also kind of vague, although a little more well defined. "Commuter rail" has taken on a specific enough distinction - use of public rails, and hence governed by the FRA - that it's probably pretty clear. But what makes something "light rail" or "streetcar" or a "tram" or a "metro" is totally arbitrary. The core shared characteristics - private electric rail - are pretty well established, but the rest are on a continuum. The "light" in light rail has to do with loading gauge, but that's far too esoteric to be interesting in these equations - most subways are "heavy rail", but the loading gauge doesn't meaningfully distinguish customer experience, service quality, or really even most cost equations - a "light rail" system running in a tunnel is indistinguishable from a heavy rail system running in a tunnel, for example. The important factors - capacity, speed, reliability - are largely determined by vehicle type and ROW, but those exist on a continuum.

It's funny that we criticize BRT because only the top of the continuum of service in that space even vaguely resembles subway-type service, but the same can be true of LRT. The difference is the US cultural expectation that LRT be as subway-like as possible, while BRT is just a bus. I sort of figure it's best to keep that distinction in place, since it's why we can get LRT lines built with dedicated ROW, proper platforms, multiple-car capabilities, high speeds, etc. But there's lots of good counter-arguments for more flexible rail arrangements too.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby mattaudio » October 14th, 2016, 8:52 am

Getting at your last point, the "service floor" of BRT in the U.S. is far far lower than the "service floor" for LRT. We see that in plenty of metropolitan areas, but we even see it right here for the Red or Orange Lines... It's a struggle to get off-board farepayment, for example.

To achieve the same speed/reliability with BRT as with LRT, we need dedicated high-amenity stations and dedicated ROW as you note - so BRT would be nearly as expensive as LRT in that case. The main benefit to BRT seems to be that buses can operate on regular streets outside the ends of the BRT guideway, so more services can take advantage of that investment. But that's also a risk, since it's tempting to use two paved lanes of bus guideway for other uses, compromising the BRT service. (sidenote, I find those European "tire path" BRT guideways fascinating, since they ensure that only compatible buses (with side tire-rollers for guidance) will use the guideway, and less horizontal space is needed.) Of course, it's far easier to obtain a lower operator cost per rider with LRVs that can be ganged together into a train of varying length, vs buses which cannot. So, all else being equal I'm generally a proponent of LRT instead of BRT, since in the U.S. and in our political environment we know the service floor on implemented LRT is likely to be far higher than the service floor on BRT.

Also, regarding commuter rail - there are a few FRA-regulated corridors where the service pattern is similar to heavy rail, at least relative to the distances being covered. Or at least there's an opportunity to push things in that direction. Caltrain is going to be electrified. Metra Electric started as a more metro-looking interurban service, and advocates are pushing for it to compliment the El in terms of service pattern. I personally think some Metra lines, such as UP-North, warrant electrification and upgrades into frequent all-day services resembling a metro service, especially if the cross-downtown heavy rail tunnel ever comes to fruition to allow through-routing. NJT and LIRR operate frequent all-day electrified services in the NY area. All or nearly all of Philly's commuter routes are electrified (thanks to their predecessor roads) and through-routed downtown until recently thanks to the 1980s Penn-Reading tunnel across downtown.

kellonathan
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 179
Joined: July 8th, 2012, 12:25 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby kellonathan » October 14th, 2016, 9:01 am

What makes FRA difficult to deal with when it comes to passenger rail services? FRA Crashworthiness Standards.
Jonathan Ahn, AICP | [email protected]
Personal thoughts and personal opinion only. May include incomplete information.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby mattaudio » October 14th, 2016, 9:05 am

Yep... isn't that what killed the Nippon Sharyo railcars being built in Rochelle, IL for Metra, Amtrak, etc? Ridiculous.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Twin Cities LRT vs Portland Tram ?

Postby talindsay » October 14th, 2016, 11:34 am

Re: crashworthiness, I'll note that the LGVs in France are almost entirely exclusive for use by passenger TGV service - in other words, an interurban service whose use characteristics much more closely match FTA's assumptions than FRA's. I know that outside France TGVs operate on mixed-use tracks, and it definitely doesn't excuse the FRA's poor rules, but the spines of most high-speed networks (and the vast majority of the French network) are exclusively passenger-rail only, which does change the risk profiles.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests