KCRag Forum

bbqboy wrote: Could you guys tell me the standard definitions of streetcars, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail?...or  at least as far as their usage on this here little forum? Thanks.

I'll take a stab anyway.

Light rail is typically characterized by its stop-and-go nature.  It is the multiple stop, urban corridor rail system.  It can operate on normal tracks, but it is usually a sleeker, smaller car and runs on electricity.  Think sliding doors, easy entry, standing room, etc.

Commuter rail is typically run on conventional track with conventional passenger train type configurations.  Its purpose is usually to connect the center of a suburban community with a transit hub in the city.  Thus, stops are limited.  Commuter rail is typically used in a park and ride fashion, or when using transit in the source community to reach the train for the trip to the city.

Street cars are a form of pseudo light rail, though light rail sometimes connotes use of off-the-road infrastructure while streetcars operate on existing streets.  Streetcars are usually smaller but still use tracks and electric engines.

If that is off base, everyone can have at it.

pretty much right on Staubio.

What the hell are you talking about tat?

I'll elaborate some...

Of course you can have hybrids of them too.  Light rail can act more like Heavy Rail for example, in St Louis or Dallas, their light rail is mostly on high speed dedicated right of ways and only crosses a few streets on the entire line. 95 % of it is elevated, subwayed or in track canyons.  Or you could have a light rail line that acts more like a street car or trolley line as it does in Salt Lake City or Buffalo.  But most light rail lines act like commuter trains in the suburbs and the act like light rail trains once downtown, for examples of this see Denver and Portland.  LA uses light rail as commuter rail because it offers more frequency for example.

You have too main types of heavy rail, urban rail and commuter rail. Both have greater right of ways and are even more restricted from interacting with streets and people than light rail or trolleys. They take longer start and stop too.  Commuter rail is what you said, heavy trains on larger tracks, basically amtraks going to the suburbs, but mostly only during peak hours.  Most of your mass transit heavy rail such as the L in Chicago, Bart in the bay area, Skytrain in Vancouver, the subways in NYC and DC high frequency and move people nearly 24 hours a day, they also carry literally millions of people in some towns every day.  These do not share tracks with freight trains.  Then you have commuter trains, which in many cases do share tracks with freight trains.  The Metra in Chicago, Sound Transit in Seattle, Long Island RR in NYC and the Coaster in San Diego.

Trolleys and Street Cars also vary.  In Portland, they are sleek and look like short light rail trains, yet they interact directly with traffic, in Memphis, they are historic looking and run down the middle of the street in their own right of way, in New Orleans, they do both.  It’s confusing because in San Diego, they call their light rail system the “trolleyâ€

warwickland wrote: what do people on here think of the commuter rail option currently being "thrown around?" for the eastern I-70 corridor? personally, i don't know how well it would work. anyone on here who rides amtrack as much as i do, knows that theres a good chance of being delayed by the very frequent frieght traffic on the very line that is being considered. the commuter rail option sounds like a great transit alternative to serve east jack, but i don't know that too many people out there would "mess" with riding something that probably doesnt even serve the area in which they commute to. i don't see the trains exactly being packed to capacity, but it would be great if i were wrong. i'm glad that a variety of ideas are being considered, but do you think this one is a waste of time?

A general characteristic of commuter rail is that it uses already-existing track.  Commuter rail is being considered here only because the KCS has an underused rail line that handles a mere handful of trains daily.  (Amtrak uses a UP line that carries 25+ trains a day through Lee's Summit.)  Nobody would even consider building a new track right along I-70 due to cost. 

This "I-70" commuter rail line is going to be hard to justify, in my opinion.  For one thing, the track has to be upgraded to allow speeds over about 40 mph, and signals have to be added.  A cynic would say the KCS is a willing partner for this corridor -- unlike the BNSF along I-35 in Johnson County -- because commuter rail would bring significant upgrades to their track, much of it at public expense.

Another problem is where to locate the downtown terminal.  Union Station is the logical end-point, but the railroads say they anticipate future freight growth along the line east of Union Station and don't want commuter trains getting in the way.  Consequently, a station near River Market is being considered.  Trouble is, getting trains there would be out of the way for most commuter trips, and would entail really significant track upgrades or a very long stretch of low-speed operation west of the Blue River.

While commuter rail to Buckner and Odessa may seem ridiculous based on the population density served it is worth noting that many suburbs served by commuter rail in NY were once far flung exurbs. Those NY commuter lines were not built for altruist mass transit reasons but were built to line the pockets of developers and fatten the tax rolls of towns by luring city residents to the suburbs. As has been noted on this forum, Grain Valley is experiencing the beginnings of a housing boom. If the I-70 commuter rail were implemented and development accelarated in Grain Valley, Buckner and Odessa you could make a pretty safe bet that Olathe, Lawrence, St. Joe, etc. would be jumping on the commuter rail band wagon pretty quick.

If Olathe starts to get the feeling that out of state H & R Block transferees are choosing to buy a house in Blue Springs rather than Olathe because Blue Springs has the added convenience of commuter rail in addition to good freeway access to downtown it won't be long before JoCo quits studying commuter rail and start buying commuter trains.

^
Commuter rail to NY and other major cities preceeded the Interstate system by decades, and they were money-makers -- through real estate development if not directly from fares.  Commuter rail here in Kansas City will probably require a public subsidy in the range of $3-5 per trip -- maybe a lot more.

Here's one of the latest additions to the Bay Area commuter/transit system. It connects The Central Valley-Stockton, with San Jose. Similar in concept. A pretty short timeline, from proposal to reality. This should give all hope that it can be done, and relatively cheaply and quickly.
http://www.acerail.com/main/acerail.htm
    http://www.elivermore.com/photos/photos_ace.htm
You can transfer to Bart, San Jose/SC County  Rapid Transit, or Caltrain.
+ here's a neat introduction, with links,  to Stanford students on how to get to and from campus.
        http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_ ... nsit.shtml

That ACE train is in trouble, limited funding. Pretty nice though. This is for all who cannot/will not pay Bay Area housing prices. Of course, the trade off is a four-five hour communte every day!

Agreed, although most transit systems seem to have continual money worries. At least they're searching for alternatives to endless car commutes, so it gives hope, I figure.

I live in Odessa and would totally use commuter rail if available. I work near crown center and to be honest... the drive sucks. I wish could ride the train to Union Station everyday for work. I went to college in Chicago and loved the L (redline), I also road the metra but only if I were going to the burbs.

The only thing I don't like about rail in Odessa is that they want to put the station, across I-70 miles from the main part of the city...I would much rather have the station in downtown (yes, the tracks go through downtown) theirs plenty of room.

warwickland wrote: I guess i should have been more clear; i'm not slamming commuter rail in general. I just don't like this proposal though for the reasons you outlined + my experience with passenger trains being sidelined for heavy freight traffic on the track they want to implement this proposal on.

I'd like to see a you-know-what line along the I-35 corridor implemented, setting a precident for the region.

i'm sorry, i was wrong about this proposed line being the one that amtrak currently runs on. i don't know how i missed that. i'm going to jump out on a limb here and still say that the proposed line is already quite busy with freight (delays), but i don't know if its as bad as the warrensburg/pleasant hill/lee's summit/independence line. i would like to see a worthy attempt at this, though.

The KCS line along the I-70 corridor has excess capacity, that's why KCS is so willing to accomodate it.  That is also why it has a better chance of happening than the I-35 corridor.

Building a new line along I-70 itself is pie in the sky.  First, it would be way too expensive, especially for something so unproven in this community.  Second, there is no right of way left along the highway, especially west of I-435.  You would have to bulldoze houses and businesses to put in rail.  Considering how badly the original highway destroyed the neighborhoods, it's doubtful the community would want to give up any more land along I-70.

Unfortunately the problem with using Union Station as a terminal isn't just freight traffic.  There is also a shortage of tracks and platforms at the station.  Most of the infrastructure was torn out to make way for Science City.  While Union Station seems like a good idea, unfortunately the choices made in its renovation have made it much harder to use it for commuter rail.

from this month's RTA newsletter:

I-70 Commuter Rail Study
The draft of the I-70 Commuter Rail Study has just been released to Mid-America Regional Council. The study looked at the feasibility of operating morning and evening commuter trains on existing tracks between downtown and Kansas City and eastern Jackson County via Blue Springs and Grain Valley. Expect a series of public conversations with communities along the corridor to discuss the results of the study and how to proceed. RTA will keep you informed as details become available.

http://www.kctransit.org/pdf/rtanewsMar07.pdf

Good2Great wrote:Until light rail takes people from the airport to bazookas, it'll never fly.

Best line in the thread.

scooterj wrote: Is there still a lot of freight traffic on that line or has its use declined?

About 2 trains a day.

bahua wrote:

It's a better answer than pollution, especially since I think people would use it.

People would use it, about 70% of Odessa's population commutes 15 or more miles to work. It would also be great for weekend trips to downtown....plus no car to park.

The current drive time from Odessa to Downtown is 35-45min.

My only problem is where the want to build the station in Odessa. I would like the station to be built in Downtown Odessa…so citizens can walk to the station, they can build the maintenance hub out further.

it would probably have to run for some time (at least 2-3 years) and be very popular before weekend and reverse commute options would be offered. also, the initial duration would only have to be competitive with rush hour drive times, since that is when the service would probably first be offered.

Even though I would use it.  Commuter rail is a waste.  We need light rail IMO in order to have something that could be used by more than suburban peak commuters.  I'll take it, but light rail to the eastern burbs via the stadiums, and US 40 etc would be much better to spark reinvestment in the entire area between Indep Center and Downtown, plus we could actually use it on weekends and to go to the stadiums.

I-70 is falling apart in KC, I don't see the need to build a commuter rail system for 800-1200 commuters (only about 1/3 more than take the buses now) while the primary freeway corridor in Jackson County which carries 150,000 cars a day rots which the exception of modot's bandaids.

GRID wrote: Even though I would use it.  Commuter rail is a waste.  We need light rail IMO in order to have something that could be used by more than suburban peak commuters.  I'll take it, but light rail to the eastern burbs via the stadiums, and US 40 etc would be much better to spark reinvestment in the entire area between Indep Center and Downtown, plus we could actually use it on weekends and to go to the stadiums.

I-70 is falling apart in KC, I don't see the need to build a commuter rail system for 800-1200 commuters (only about 1/3 more than take the buses now) while the primary freeway corridor in Jackson County which carries 150,000 cars a day rots which the exception of modot's bandaids.

hey Grid, I think this is the first time I was bold enough to write something on here:
  http://forum.kcrag.com/index.php/topic,6370.0.html

 

Personally I would like to see us at least try to make an honest effort with Park and Ride coachs before we go out and spend a fortune on commuter rail. 

bbqboy wrote: hey Grid, I think this is the first time I was bold enough to write something on here:
  http://forum.kcrag.com/index.php/topic,6370.0.html

   

Not sure what you are saying.