So You Built the Wrong Transit System... What Now?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- This video is sponsored by Rocketman. Check out the Rocketman app for free for both Android and iOS here: rocketmanapp.onelink.me/QIMY/...
Many cities (especially in North America) build transit that doesn't make sense for them. In this latest video, I talk about how cities can transform existing transit lines into entirely different forms of transit.
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
FTC Disclosure: This video is sponsored by Rocketman. All content presented is my own. There may be affiliate links, meaning I receive a small commission from purchases - feel free to use your own links! These are my 100% honest opinions.
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & TH-cam MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on TH-cam! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
TH-cam Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MERCH=
Check out the RMTransit Merch Store here!
/ @rmtransit
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
GitHub: github.com/reecemartin
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!
#japan #transit #lrt
![NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) - Reimagined [Live Session]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nY2PsFZFEOg/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you have a transit line you think would be better off as a different mode?
In Perth the areas of Mirrabooka and Curtin Uni are very busy and have high demand for transport to the CBD. A light rail solution was being planned for years, but was cancelled in 2016. Now we just have extremely high frequency bus services which are always packed even though they run like every 2 minutes in peak hours. The light rail should have definitely been created, but a limited budget meant that it wasn't.
Yes in Portugal they closed some years ago a heavy rail line Ramal da Lousã (Lousã branch line) and now they are converting it to a bus rapid service. Let me just add that Coimbra (where the branch starts) is one of the biggest cities and the old station is connected to the main line. The branch line was profitable...
@@TransportofPerth I'm actually skeptical, I think if the demand is that high you could probably benefit from something higher capacity than light rail.
Cleveland's Metro, The city and metro area are shrinking, and they have way more transit than a city of their size warrants. Much like how a growing city should expand capacity, a shrinking one should reduce. You focused on Tokyo alot in this video, because it is still growing, but many other cities outside of the biggest 5 or 6 cities are actually scaling back
U35 in Bochum in the Ruhr Area, Germany. A light rail line serving 30k/day that runs in a tunnel for 3/4 of its lenght and runs in the median of a large road on the last southern bit serving a large university. Originally build as Express tram in the 60s it was converted to high floor LRT in the early 90s (and kept operating during it!) and uses 2x 28m High Floor B-Wagen sets. The Tunnel stations are build to full metro specs but the above ground ones are only 60m plus some tolerance. It's almost grade seperated except for 3! spots where it crosses minor streets and one highway exit. I'd love to see it completely grade seperated as Copenhagen style metro but that would include 1 new underground stop and about a km worth of elevated track in a median all whilst keeping it operational without longer interruption. It's already running 3 minute headways in rush hour and automating it would free up drivers to serve the rest of the tram system and increase lacking frequency there
I think that the reason that the overwhelming majority of new urban rail transit in the US is light rail is because that is all you can get funding for, even if you know that a heavier-duty type of rail transit would be better.
Self-coorrection: The above is assuming that you can even get funding for light rail -- hence the "popularity" of bus rapid transit (that usually isn't very rapid).
"The solution has long existed in Japan" is applicable to all transit.
Most transit* :)
Anything bus-related in Japan are not good. They should learn something about buses from Europe
I recently took a car-free vacation to Seattle and actually really liked their light rail. Constantly changing from elevated to street-level to underground to street-level to underground again really fascinated me. I think the ability to easily take the train somewhere without needing a car is more important than the type of train it is. I could easily see myself living along Martin Luther King Jr Way, my favorite portion of the line that's walkable. Meanwhile near the airport, the stations are very car-centric with large park & rides...my least favorite portion.
Man, everyone involved in NA public transit planning need to take a sabbatical to learn about European and Asian systems at some point in their careers
@Uoo HKNK You are most likely making sweeping assumptions about someone you don't know based on a single comment. Of course I was being a bit cheeky but I've grown up using the TTC and am no stranger to NA systems. To say that north american planners could learn more from their European or Asian counterparts is not controversial last time I checked
@Uoo HKNK Also, the logic of " some NA systems are better in their local context than some overseas ones so you must not know your stuff" is something I never understand. Some non pro basketball players are taller, stronger, or more skilled than some NBA players but to suggest because of that those people wouldn't have anything to learn from NBA players is ridiculous.
@Uoo HKNK As true as that may be, it's worth a try lol
None of that will change the political structure that gets to a lot of our decisions.... decisions that very often include compromises to ensure transit gets built.
Haha I could not agree more!
The opposite has also happened in Japan: In Toyama the JR branch to the port was converted into light rail, and the line to Miyajima in Hiroshima was converted from an interurban and integrated into the tram network in the 1980s. Some of the rural rail lines damaged in the 2011 tsunami have also been converted to BRT.
Lots of cases of old rail lines turned into tram and tram train type operations, but that's a pretty well known trend!
@@RMTransit Japan has done so well upgrading lines into the metro/regional rail direction, its very much neglected to the do the reverse.
@@RMTransit Yep, it's happened quite a few times here in the UK as well. A lot of the outer city lines of the metrolink trams in manchester are based on disused BR lines.
I know off the newcastle tyne and wear metro as well having a similar story of origin.
AFAIK, only blackpool retains an original non-railway route
In a similar note however, due to the low speed of the routes that have street running, for much of the east-west locations that are also served by rail, rail proves to be a still very popular choice.
I think a railway in Newcastle was shut, then eventually resurrected as light rail
I've noticed that when you say things that Tokyo in Japan does well, wouldn't it also be good to also mention Japan's other cities such as Osaka (+ the whole Kansai area), Nagoya as they often do transit things just as well as Tokyo ? Eg. With this video I am pretty sure the major private railway lines around Osaka also started off as Trams just like in Tokyo.
Great point! I agree, there are a lot of great transit lines outside of Tokyo too, especially in Osaka and Nagoya
@@nicolasblume1046 the Light Rail in Toyama and the Hiroden in Hiroshima are also great ones.
Everyone knows the name Tokyo and is aware their system is god like,,,,, other cities are less known. I agree with you but prolly just simply boils down to that :)
I think a very easy upgrade to many North American light rail systems would be a reduction in "unsignalized" grade crossings. A lot of light rail I've rode don't even have gates at grade crossings, they have traffic lights for trains so that they have to stop at intersections and wait for their light to change. This somewhat defeats the purpose of an light rail. These crossings could be upgraded with crossing gates and lights to turn them into real railroad crossings where the train always has priority. It would be cheaper than grade-separating the whole line but still offer some degree of speed increase.
You suggested some systems could upgrade to metro cars, but I think that could be too expensive (particularly if a change in platform height is required). Instead, I'd propose buying new light rail trains that feature flat cabs with a door in the middle instead of a streamlined cab. It would make them look a little old-fashioned but the door could be opened when coupled to another trainset to allow people to walk through. Such trains could also have a more comfortable seating arrangement and upgraded traction motors for a higher top speed. The system would then retain its original platform height and be backwards-compatible with older trains. I'd imagine such a system using their new walk-through trains on the busiest lines or during peak demand while relegating their older standalone cars to smaller lines.
The whole System between Cologne, Bonn, Siegburg and Bad Honnef in Germany has such a System too. Its a Tram, a Subway and a Metro in one and its working really well!
Same thing in the rhein ruhr region
This Brit (Roger Sexton) notes that the Dutch and the Swiss often convert a route from one form of rail line to another. For example, Rotterdam has two metro lines which used to be NS heavy rail. One of these metros goes to The Hague where it shares tracks with the Randstadrail trams to Zoetermeer new town, on a line first served by NS heavy trains! There used to be two inter-urban tram lines from Bern to Worb. One of these lines is now S7 of the Bern S-bahn. The other is now route 6 of the Bern city tram network! A rural line Trogen St Gallen-Appenzell has been changed to a modern inter-urban tramway.
@@officialmcdeath For people not familiar with Switzerland, the standard gauge line from Aarau to Suhr was of no real use. So the local (very busy) meter gauge line from Aarau to Menziken was diverted onto the (much better aligned) route which used to be taken by the standard gauge trains.
@@Fan652w that seems like good sense for sure. I think part of the issue is seeing the big picture and how reusing or rebuilding infrastructure often provides way more value than it costs.
sexton
Honestly the examples you've mentioned in Switzerland haven't really converted into something different. It's rather the case that they've (slightly and incrementally) evolved.
I enjoy riding Seattle’s light rail very much and can’t wait to see it continue expanding. The city is compact enough that it feels perfectly adequate in most cases. The only journey that is a really long is to get to the airport… if in the future they implement express service there it would be appreciated. As for LA, I so hope they can create some sort of express service stopping at Santa Monica, Culver City, the Crenshaw/LAX transfer, and DTLA. It is already an improvement over sitting in traffic but it is still rather slow for such a far distance.
I think the biggest thing that could help Dallas and Denver is digging downtown tunnels to replace their currently above ground light rail stations, it would make the systems much faster and improve capacity
Righ on. I live in Dallas and I have been saying that for years. but I'm 64 now probably won't see it in my lifetime. Also, raise all the platforms.
Dart is actually planning to add another underground line downtown with 3 underground station and one new above ground station near perot museum. The Green and Orange line would use it while the Red and Blue line remains above ground on the orginal tracks but it depends on the final design if the tunnel exit is near Deep Ellum
Denver can even use the downtown bus tunnels.
Of all the Japanese private lines, Hanshin might have been the one which went through the greatest change through its history, from a New England-style side-of-the-road trolley line to a modern high-speed regional rail operation.
When I was at school in the 1970s, we had a presentation by someone's father (who happened to be a university professor in engineering!) showing how Edinburgh's disused or freight-only railway lines could be converted to a light rapid transport network. Apart from the one tram line from the city centre to the airport, none of this was ever built. Against this, Edinburgh now has a pretty impressive cycle network covering much of the network appearing on the professor's 1970s map. It may be 'old school' but Edinburgh also has a pretty decent bus service and car parking in or near the city centre is restricted or very expensive or both. So there is no one solution that fits every city.
One of the main reasons that Light Rail is chosen is to prevent the urban decay that often occurs around a brutal ugly heavy rail corridor. The world is littered with examples of heavy rail corridors destroying neighbourhoods for blocks in all directions. My home town of Newcastle, Australia made the correct decision to remove the last 2km of heavy rail and then made the questionable decision to replace it with Light Rail which negated some of the urban renewal benefits of removing heavy rail. Very few people would argue to bring back heavy rail and all the damaging infrastructure that comes with it.
Unfortunately there was no serious consideration of elevating the last 2 km of the Newcastle heavy rail line. Melbourne has recently elevated its busiest line and beneath it is a parkway that attracts lots of walkers and cyclists. The trains above are very quiet above and almost unnoticeable. A lot of contributions to the public debate in Newcastle were from a public development agency. I believe one of their senior managers subsequently moved to Melbourne, where he conceded that elevating rail can join areas together.
@@malcolmmccaskill2311 The difference is that the line into Newcastle is next to the water. An elevated structure with elevated stations would have been truly horrible in that location. No sensible urban planner would ever contemplate such a thing for the volume of passengers involved. Having heavy rail cutting the city off from the harbour drew protests in the 1850's when it was built. Victoria is a totally different situation.
As a dutch person that loves making videos about transport infrastructure, I'm glad in Europe we didn't break everything up!
Ah it depends, a lot of stuff was still broken up, just far less
The UK broke up a lot of it. Aberdeen decided to burn their trams when they done away with them. Since then there has been calls and case studies for their return.
I’d say it’s worth trams in Aberdeen trams have proven successful in croydon Manchester Nottingham and a lot of other places.
@@spencergraham-thille9896 That is simply wrong and is propaganda. In the US it happened mostly in the 50s and 60s and 70s. To think that the US is the best in everything is simply wrong.
You are right that in, at least The Netherlands, there is a reasonable good public transit system, but it is not evenly distributed across the country. A lot of national railways and regional railways or tramways have been closed down in the last 50years. There was a whole regional railway system (Haarlemmermeerspoorlijnen) between the cities of Amsterdam, Haarlem, Leiden, Alphen a/d Rijn and Utrecht. All gone, only some station buildings still exists. On maps you could see some of the embankments (the tracks are removed), some have become bus lanes, bike paths, roads, or just lay derelict. There is still the disused but beautiful building called Haarlemmermeer station in Amsterdam. There was also the railway to IJmuiden, the railway between Groningen and Emmen, Apeldoorn and Zwolle/Hattem, Amersfoort and Kesteren. The list is endless. And much longer ago the regional tramways, like the tram between Haarlem and The Hague. We hardly have any regional trams, most inter municipal trams are trams from the city to neighboring towns, that could easily be seen as suburbs of the city. And buses are scaled down in recent years. If you live on the countryside or in a small town, you can forget taking the bus to the office. , I work in Utrecht. It’ll take me an hour to get there, while a the car takes me in 20 minutes. I live near Schiphol Airport (18km away), but no direct bus line to the airport. Amsterdam city center (20km away) the same (a few years ago they cancelled the express bus to Amsterdam South Station), Utrecht city center (22km away) also the same. The nearest railway station is 12km away, but no bus connection to my town, the second nearest is 15km away, with a direct bus connection to my town in 40 minutes. Many of our town inhabitants work in Amsterdam, Schiphol and Utrecht. We always need a transfer to get there, that’s why in our busses you don’t see people going to work. But you see a lot of students and school children, they have a ‘free’ public transit card or hardly any alternative.
Maybe LA will eventually obtain rapid transit style cars for their Light Rail system. Higher capacity that could be potentially walk thru capable but still nimble enough to run in the streets almost like the old Pacific Electric Red Cars.
Look at the MBTA Blue Line in Boston for a perfect example of this. It originally ran streetcars thru the East Boston Tunnel, America’s First Underwater Subway tunnel. But nearly a century ago in one massive weekend operation Boston officials converted the fleet to high level rapid transit style cars and build high level platforms.
Because of this and the sharp turns the trains have to negotiate particularly at the Bowdoin terminal where trains loop around to start the outbound trip, Blue Line cars are considerably more shorter than most North American subway cars at 48.5 ft long per carriage.
The biggest problem in LA is that their trains are like a cross between homeless shelters and insane asylums. Until the riff raff, junkies, and hobos are removed, people who have the means to drive won’t be using it.
@@danieldaniels7571 homeless people on trains?!!! Guess you haven’t been on the NYC Subway before. It’s a problem that you’ll find on massive transit systems worldwide. But they’re not the biggest issue. Post pandemic as gas prices go through the roof expansion of transit will become an even bigger issue as people won’t be able to afford driving their cars.
So we’re gonna need those larger rail cars.
@@DDELE7 nope, never been to NYC. But I live in Phoenix and use the light rail here almost every day, and I have used the Metro in L.A. as well as the BART in the Bay, and both are loaded with homeless people and those dirty enough I assume they’re homeless. I tough it out because I can’t afford to drive, but it’s easily one of the biggest things that makes those who can afford to drive not use rail or bus in those cities. And larger trains aren’t going to fix that problem.
Since you mentioned DFW/DART, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the D2 subway proposals. Maybe a potential video for the future? DART is such an interesting, albeit very flawed system (as this video points out). Between Texrail, TRE, and DART there is a lot to talk about and I'd love your take!
“So you built the wrong system”
“We built a translohr”
“Irredeemable”
Turn it in to a regular trolleybus
I’d love to see a move away from light rail systems and see for expriments in North America with light metro
Honolulu
@@CityLifeinAmerica funny assuming it’ll ever run, fingers crossed
I mean I think we need regional rail more than anything, it suits big sprawling cities
For a landmass that are huge and sprawling cities, it is really quite ironic of oddly huge fondness of these transit planners making light rails.
@@kornkernel2232 light rails are also an easier “sell” with the public because of all of the disruption and time it takes to build a subway or regional rail.
Looking forward to you growing the series you started with Buffalo about how certain systems should/could evolve.
Also along these lines, would be nice to see some review of Swiss style systems operating on minimal infrastructure, and how to best utilize single track lines (Such as Ottawa line 2) (Edit: which you did sort of cover with the Japanese Monorail video and string diagrams).
I definitely want to, but those videos are hard!
Ottawa Line 2 is a poster child for poor design. You don't open an upgrade that is at 100% capacity. There is no upgrade path for Line 2 beyond closing down the line yet again. At least Line 1 can expand the train length and the frequency. Line 2 you can't do either.
Can you do one on San Diego Trolley? It would be interesting to see what you think of the current system and where it should go.
I'm surprised you ignore the Chicago, South Shore & South Bend, which started out as an interurban and has transitioned to a regional rail line. When the 1920s era interurban cars were retired they were replaced with modern style regional rail cars. Gradually they eliminated the remaining portions of street running. I believe the last section of street running has just been replaced recently. This is worth taking a look at in a video.
Another thing Los Angeles's Long Beach line was basically a restoration of the Pacific Electric's line that was abandoned in 1961. The extension of Toronto's Yonge Street subway or Line 1 to Richmond Hill is a restoration of interurban service that was originally provided by the Toronto & York Radial Railway that was abandoned in 1948.
Another Chicago example I could give is the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee, an interurban that ended service in 1963. The South Shore shows what could have been done to the North Shore had it been kept in service. After the CNS&M was abandoned that part of the line through the Skokie Valley was taken over made into a rail transit route.
This is a great video. There is so much that can be done to upgrade existing rail transit systems, if the agencies are bold enough and imaginative enough.
I've long thought that a mixed provision of different system types would be much more
appropriate on the island of Sodor, where the total dominance of heavy rail has proven costly to maintain and upgrade over time, and given rise to some dramatic conflicts between the various models of locomotives and passenger carriages, as well as the freight wagons that have to share the often crowded and ageing permanent way. Ironically, perhaps, the system was a victim of its own phenomenal success, being fully built out within just a few years of the appearance of the first sections of the railway. The designer of the system, W. V. Awdry, was a man ordained to have a remarkable impact, while also being constrained by his somewhat traditional beliefs, and the technologies available to him when he was active. Gordon, James and Thomas, for example, were astounding feats of engineering in their day, but have since been superceded in both speed and efficiency by electrically powered forms of traction, and much of the permanent way that lies in unsightly cuttings would now surely be routed through a variety of sub-surface and deep level tunnels, without any sacrifice of power or capacity. That said, his son, C V Awdry, have been fiercely protective of his father's legacy, and it is unlikely that either he, or afficionados of Sodor's iconic railway, at home or around the world, will permit any moves to modernise the system, and for now, at least, it is believed that the Fat Controller has ruled out any significant replacement of the existing infrastructure. So, long-suffering commuters will just have to put up with those bitchy, whinging coaches.
Treating a fictional place like it's real, I loved reading this!
I will say as someone who has used Denver's light rail extensively. That Portland made the right move in moving away from those types of trains as they're not exactly user or accessible friendly. I've schelped luggage and groceries onto those trains and it's not the least bit comfortable, on top of awkward. Denver has been weirdly stubborn about keeping those trains and not looking at replacing them with say newer rolling stock of Siemens or Alstom. The Denver commuter trains are decent I just wish they didn't use single tracking for sections of it.
In Stockholm we sort of did this, before Stockholm had a big tram network unfortunatly the lines in the city were removed but many on the ones in the suburbs were converted and uppgraded to the now existing Subway. There is a tunnel just South of the the central station were the Subway now use that you can see were the overhead wires for the trams use to be.
In the case of Dallas's light rail the vehicles regularly hit 70mph in operation. Being light rail doesn't hinder them a ton, but their incredibly weird platform bumps to achieve ADA accessibility absolutely do limit them. It's a very weird system, mostly hindered by travelling along legacy freight lines and lack of density in industrial Dallas suburbs. Any new vehicles will need to have the same unusual door spacing and cannot simply be a low floor vehicle without again modifying every platform.
They definitely should have just gone with standard high floor trains from the beginning though. It would have saved money since they're already having to raise and extend every platform to fit the middle section added to the vehicles.
Still, I’m glad they have raised sections of platform (although raising all of it would be better) versus just relying on staff with ramps as the UK does. The only place I’ve seen raised sections of platform in the UK are the London Underground.
Yeah up hear in the Seattle area we ran low floor streetcars through our bus tunnel and slowly expanded from downtown and outside of the city under the pretense that ridership would be too low to warrant bigger vehicles but now ridership is higher than expected and we’re currently hindered by our low floor infrastructure. Hopefully we can upgrade this to be more metro like in the future since most of it is grade separated
I wish Phoenix light rail went that fast. Ours is all on streets and never exceeds 35mph. With stops almost every 1/2 mile it takes a painfully long time to get anywhere compared to driving there.
I love this video but I don't think your criticism of light rail is warranted. It seems like a lot of the light rail lines I've seen typically have more stops than your typical high-floor commuter train. For example, the DART lines in Dallas and Link lines in Seattle stop so frequently that I don't think it would make much sense to have a commuter rail in its place.
Light rail definitely has its place but if the stops are infrequent enough, then it might make sense to consider converting to high-floor commuter trains.
San Diego’s Blue Line should be a light metro with a Regional Connector-like tunnel under it’s Downtown, but we’re not ready to have that discussion.
Seattle should have built a metro
If that had been proposed, it would have failed at the ballot box, and we would still have nothing. Just rode it from SeaTac to north Seattle today. Got home faster than if I did the drive/remote parking shuttle thing. If we went for the pie in the sky system, it would not have been built and I would have needed to do the drive/parking shuttle thing, and been just one more car on I-5, spewing CO2.
American transit planners are very obsessed with trains, as long as they are low floor and run on the street (b/c flexible operating environments).
It’s almost as if they’re regretting taking out the original streetcars in the first place! Now they’re trying to put them back….as they originally were.
@@CityLifeinAmerica The gag is that the previous streetcar iteration was actually useful
@@CityLifeinAmerica so true, seattle is a prime example
Yeah I do think it's worth considering why a lot of streetcar lines had issues
A lot of south London’s rail network would work much better as extensions of the Tube.
Similar for many UK cities, they could do with a short underground city Center tunnel for their tram systems to make them full light rail.
Something like the Tyne and wear Metro seems like a decent approach for more cities
@@RMTransit very much so, although that could certainly do with expansion.
Definitely another system that’s very underrated and could do with more extensions and investment.
I suppose when the wrong type of train based transit is built; transition or at least a partial transformation can be done. The simplest way is to get trains/trainsets which can be utilized for a different format. For example a light rail system which comes inadequate can graduate to high level boarding and slightly wider trains which can operate on heavy rail metro/subway sections. An over ambitiously built metro system can graduate to shorter light rail like trainsets and future extensions to the system can be light rail type.
Additionally it might make sense to procure trains which are capable of running on main line or suburban tracks. Grossly underutilized subway/metro lines could be re-engineered to allow suburban/intercity/freight trains to run on them. This way their utilization can be increased.
Phoenix went with the light rail that should have been a Metro thing too. Ours goes through 3 different cities! This thing should have been a regional rail.
Yeah I absolutely agree I'm happy Phoenix is investing in transit but it definitely isn't the right solution for such long routes
Agreed. Phoenix desperately needs a form of transit that’s actually faster than just simply driving to your destination on the freeway. Until that happens, most people who can drive will have little motivation to use transit. The express and RAPID busses are notably faster than the light rail here.
In Seattle light rail's case, I imagine that it might be difficult to re-do all the elevated segments of the line that was made for light rail and not heavy metro? Or are those segments suitable for metro too?
Could we pull off light metro, though, Reece’s favorite? So much of Link is grade-separated viaduct, except that dratted Columbia City segment. If we went back and buried that, could we transition Link to an Automated Light Metro?
@@ericpallen There sadly designed a 300-ft section of center-avenue running at-grade light rail near Overlake/Spring Districr. So that would have to be redone as well
@@ericpallen I think Seattle Link Light Rail is what Reece means by light metro haha
Good topic.
In the UK, two systems spring to mind where heavy rail lines were falling in ridership, but have been transformed by conversion to light rail and high frequency service.
Manchester Metrolink utilises former heavy rail corridors that had previously been electrified. High floor trams use the remaining station platforms with on street running in the city centre. Very successful.
Tyne and Wear Metro. Former heavy rail lines radiating from Newcastle that had been electrified, then dieselised and generally run down (very poor service when I last used it). These were converted to 1500V dc overhead electrification with underground tunnels in the city centre. Now very successful and being extended.
So these are just two lines that have benefited from a change in transit mode. Although I no longer live there, I am following the development of the South Wales Metro based around Cardiff, but there are other cities in the UK that have Metro ideas that may or may not come to fruition.
First thing that immediately pops to mind as soon as I saw the title was "Scarborough RT" .
Very good point indeed
To answer the title question: just use it until it wears out, junk it, then wait a long while before any replacement (that should have been built from the beginning) is ever finished.
With Edmonton's density, I think the Capital/Metro system is probably "about right'" for now. The 5-car 125 metre trains are as big as several metro lines around the World, and as Reese says in this video, walkthrough trains + longitudinal seating = about 25% more capacity.
What Edmonton really needs to do is take our recent bus-route reorganisation about 3 notches higher to a more "Torontoly" bus system. Toronto only functions at the level it does globaly because it has a "ridable" bus system, and thus ridership is through the roof. We're just too low density to be chasing Europe/Asia/New York/Vancouver/Montreal. Yet.
I strongly agree with Reese though, that the Whyte Ave service should be grade separated extension of the Metro Line, and not low floor.
I so wish you could come to Dallas and impart your knowledge to the Powers That Be that are in charge of our rail system. You really know your stuff! Do you contract out to planning committees?
I actually live north of Dallas in Denton, home of possibly the shortest rail system in North America, the DCTA "A" Train (there is no B or C train, lol.) It has such potential and yet fails miserably at serving its purpose. If you ever want to do a video about a small rail system that could be so much more, check out our A Train. The planners got some things right - bringing in German engineers and their amazing trains - yet failed to focus on the main objective - moving people to where they need to go. (They didn't put rail stops at major points of interest - local shopping areas, near hospitals, and local colleges.)
One of the problems in DFW is that any desire to invest in transit is severely hampered by the ability to fund it. It's basically impossible to use real estate as a revenue source for adding things like destinations where people might want to go. On top of that, the state says you only have two options for financing transit through sales tax, either through a regional/city by city basis or on a county style organisation. That's it. Short of private options which only really work with mass ridership or long distance oriented tickets akin to air travel, taxes are the only option the state allows. Add to that the impediment nearby cities put on its usefulness by not choosing to join an agency like DART, Trinity Metro, or DCTA, and the system becomes smaller and more fragmented, not covering the entire metro region. That alone would make such systems more useful.
Hopefully DART will begin replacing their aging trains soon, and look at things like electric FLIRTs or something like that. We'll see, but I wonder whether the electrification running on DC will be a problem. Switching to 25kV AC would be a great change for upcoming interoperability potential with something like a connection for Texas Central HSR and an electrification and upgrade of the TRE to allow something like higher speed 100-125 MPH service between Dallas and Ft Worth.
But really there are lots of small issues that are often not understood from an outsider's perspective. It's unfortunate we are so limited by where we can even get funding to build any infrastructure for transit here. Often we have to hope for federal funding, and that's never a good thing to rely on.
We had a busway built even though research showed that a rail based transport would be more beneficial for the area.
It was chosen for three reasons 1) it was the cheaper option 2) the bus way and stations were designed so they could easily converted and mostly importantly 3) it was to save the designated space for public transit to be eaten up by the motorway next to it.
We are doing the opposite -- maybe we can trade :). Seriously though, item number 2 is crucial. It really helps if you can convert the thing.
3:32 That's Osloer Straße in Berlin, where you have a choice of bus (and express bus), U-Bahn, and tram (and a short distance from Genundbrunnenm with S-Bahn, regional, and mainline rail).
An example where the conversion from interurban to commuter rail actually DID take place in the United States, in fact, probably the only case, is the South Shore Line in Indiana. It still has some street running in Michigan City but it uses long single level commuter trains or shorter bilevel commuter trains as opposed to the one to three car interurban trains the South Shore ran back in the day. It does help that it was integrated into the national rail network rather than the Chicago L and as such was able to accommodate conventional freight cars and locomotives, but it’s still a good example and one that could’ve maybe worked with the other Chicago interurbans. After all, much of the LA Metro is basically recreating lost Pacific Electric lines right down to using the exact same right of way
It's a decent example but I would call that more of a maintaining the line rather than actually upgrading it
@@RMTransit I disagree: they’ve done a significant grade separation in Hammond with a new station, and there’s been a good amount of grade separation in that northwest corner of Indiana in the Hammond and Gary area. While level boarding isn’t universal yet, it’s expanded over a lot of the line where there originally was only level boarding where the line shared tracks with the IC. And more upgrades are planned like double track all the way to Michigan City and removing the street running segment. There is also discussion on bringing the South Shore back from the airport into downtown South Bend. And a new branch is being built off heading towards Dyer which never existed on the original South Shore.
Stockholm is planning a short metro system linking Älvsjö with Liljeholmen and Fridhemsplan. They just announced to shorten the platforms to half the lenghs of what is usually the standard to save money. IMO they could just build a tramway instead for that purpose.
I don't necessarily agree, there is already the tram but a Metro offers faster speeds higher capacity and better reliability
@@RMTransit That is true but that doesn't mean the metro will solve everything and as someone who lives here and have read about the project in detail I am pretty sure that metro line is the biggest waste of taxpayers money when it comes to infrastructure projects and I have been critical to the fact they have only studied a metro solution and never considered looking for other available options to compare with.
You focus a lot on upgrading lighter forms of rail to heavier forms of rail. But shouldn't there be more "downgrading".
Rotterdam for example intergraded large sections of heavy rail into it's metro network. The reasoning being a higher frequency with trains that can accelerate faster makes for better connections. In addition that you can add extra stations easier.
Another thing is redundancy, while you could upgrade a lightrail or tram to a heavier form to create more capacity, you should maybe be thinking about a parallel line in addition to the existing line. So in case there are issues on one line (an accident, maintenance etc) you have a fallback. In addition you also get more network synergy an induced demand creating a more used and robust network.
The issue is that having transit be successful is usually a higher priority than having it operate at a high level
I feel like Edmonton's Valley Line should be a high floor metro line in the future. The city is growing fast and the corridor is slated for a lot of development. It is also a major downtown-suburban axis. Low floor LRT probably wasn't the best choice in light of these considerations, though the choice of low floor LRT has been better executed here than in most other places.
Hey man new fan love the vids! I'd like to see a vid on super commuters and how to service them, especially in the bay area as that's reality for a LOT of people out here. BART doesn't run far enough and frequency and transit connections to alternative rail are subpar. BART's Indian Gauge rail doesn't help matters for integration either...
LA built what they did because they would never have gotten the ballot measure approval for anything that looks like a Subway.
Meanwhile in Toronto, we’re building ourselves into several corners.
Guess, sometimes, you must build a line mode surpassing city scale, just to boost it's growth. I think a lot of european cities did that
Trolley Parks are really cool! Canobie Lake in NH and Lake Compounce in CT are Trolley Parks.
My City of Cologne, Germany unfortunately built a Stadtbahn System in the late 60s - quickly turned out to be inadequate for a City of 1 Mio people.
They also made the mistake to build tunnels with very sharp curves and flat junctions, which reduces capacity further.
Some other cities that built their Stadtbahn Systems later learned from this and build Systems with 4 track double decker tunnels, grade separated tunnels and wider curves (Düsseldorf, Hannover)
They should have built a full metro instead, or at least built a premetro that can be upgraded later, like in Brussels.
In Cologne, they just put their mistakes into the archive. (The worst about the Cologne system is that during tunnel construction the citys archive collapsed into the mud.)
I think one of the biggest Ligth Rail systems is Stadtbahn Rhein Ruhr in Germany with highfloor platforms for the Stadtbahn and Lowfloor platforms for Trams but on the same station and in the Downtown it drives underground. But its not so good because its so many cities and different gauges. Maybe you can talk about this in a other Video later this Year?
6:59 I played too much Train Simulator as a kid. Instantly recognized this overpass
My city is contemplating a 30-mile light rail line to a 5k worker job center that is being built in the exurbs. I am really frustrated because it seems like a waste of money. The length of the corridor only has suburban development along it-and only for less than half of it.
Don't forget that in Japan we have had no significant population growth for decades. It's easier to plan for a more-or-less stable ridership number.
We also need to do it in the past best example of North America is the Blue line in Boston where formally it used to be a trolley tunnel and only served trolley trains but because of a high demand they switch it to to Metro stock so we could have done in the past we can do it again
Yes! The over use of Light Rail has more to do with cost than providing meaningful and quality transit. Dallas specifically really doesn't have a core area like NYC. So it could get away with using lower capacity vehicles. But serving the suburbs is all about revenue, not so much about whether who will use it. That's why it is one of the lowest used systems.
Yes but at the same time a ton of ridership can be found in suburban areas if you approach the problem in the right way
I think it is possibly going to take a longer time to convert a non optimal transit system to one that is more capable of high capacity and frequency, let's say from a small light rail style to the system using Singapore MRT sized trains
Perhaps when you are doing the Taipei Metro, do note that the Singapore MRT inspired Taipei to build transit with trains that operate the Singapore MRT sized trains too
Of course it will take decades if it ever happens the point is that it is possible!
@7:44 what rolling stock would you upgrade the ST Link to?
Some mistakes are reversible while others are not. For example, Monterrey MX line 3 is currently operated as an extension of line 2, but can eventually become a line of it's own because it was foreseen by the engineers. Guadalajara's line 1 started as an underground Trolleybus that was renovated and extended to fit current day demand. But Mexico City is building an "elevated Trolleybus" that will be insufficient from day one and cannot be upgraded to light rail let alone metro.
this guy gets hard ons for trains
Have you made any videos about that old branch line that VIA is trying to make into a dedicated passenger line from Toronto to Ottawa?
I've talked about the HFR plans and my skepticism towards them in a previous video
Neat will watch it! The South Shore interurban line now uses Japanese made 1980s emu's that still look like an interurban and now they have weird double decker emu's that look like a metra galley car with a pantrograph slapped on top.
The MRT-3 here in Metro Manila comes to mind regarding building the wrong type of transit line. Runs along the busiest road of the metropolis....
with the specs of something in between a tram and light rail. Too light and restrictive to act as THE main metro line of the city. Not to mention inconvenient accessibility to some of the stations (either you walk nearly a kilometer to reach one of the main intersections or hike along a mountain of stairs in a major intersection station, plus these entrances have blocked off the sidewalk in some places). And ultimately, not all major points along the road is not served with a station. Add to that that it is only just recovering from years of neglect and mismanagement leading to daily breakdowns to trains, tracks and station escalators and elevators, to the purchase of trains completely incompatible and unusable on the system which meant only one trainset is active coming from the new rolling stock.
Ironic since the least used metro line (LRT-2), was built years later with standard heavy rail metro specs more suited to Line 3.
Hi Reese, would you be able to do an overview of transit in major Polish cities? I'm curious about your take on them knowing that you're a huge fan of rapid transit, as I think they're fine with just trams and shouldn't bother building metro lines (save for Warsaw, of course). For instance, Poznań is a medium-size metro area of ca. 1M people that is rapidly sub-urbanizing due to multiple reasons (most people can't afford living in the center that is becoming an area of empty apartments kept by the owners as an investment). That's why I think the city is doing the right thing by developing the suburban rail that can get people to the city and then, they can get to their destination by tram. The thing I would improve, though, is definitely the station design and alignment with tram stops/loops - the walk is sometimes over 700m (on the massive and horrible main station) which is very inconvenient.
It's worth noting, the LA Metro is *already doing this* via the regional connector in my opinion.
I don't know if I would consider that transforming the mode
@@RMTransit It certainly seems like a productive step in that direction though
An implication of your video is that building a transit line with the ability to significantly increase capacity would save a lot of hassle later. Your video says "It can be fixed", but many of these fixes come at a huge cost.
I don't know if that's the main implication, and yes fixes come at a cost - but they can be done highly incrementally
It’s a great idea, but is it feasible to shutdown existing lines like Ottawa’s in order to raise platforms, soften curves etc? I can imagine this would be more time consuming and expensive, especially in the tunnelled portions. Japan’s transition from trams to metro styled services (thinking of the Keio Line as a nice example) went smoothly because the new railway system was grade separated with the “new” underground of portion at Shinjuku and no replacement bus services were needed during the making of the new line.
Rail Replacement would be a nightmare in Toyko, you'd struggle to get a bus to many of the smaller stations (and that's without dealing with the sheer number of travellers).
Raising platforms from low floor to higher floor is very uncommon. You usually go the other way around, higher floor to lower floor.
@@railotaku not to mention that the majority of local buses in Tokyo are smaller than those in North America.
@@mlmielke exactly, and that’s why Seattle’s and Ottawa’s systems would require a system shutdown followed by a complete overhaul to lower tracks for a higher level platform or some how shorten the length of the escalators to accommodate a rise in platform level. Neither option is really practical.
@@japanesetrainandtravel6168 I don't think it requires a full shutdown, it just requires a new line investment that joins with segments to be upgraded at a time. For example, you could install rail on the SE transitway from Hurdman/Tremblay to Carleton and South Keys and upgrade the east LRT at the same time. That east segment update alone would actually do a lot, as the 100% low floors are mostly just an issue on that segment.
Wish you'd cover Eastern European transit. Lots of interesting Soviet solutions there
@RMTransit I wanted to assist with my local urban planning (live right near Disneyland within 15 minutes walking distance) and was hoping to get involved in planning new bus routes mostly in Anaheim and Orange County (the ARTIC building is heavily underutilized. I have a car still, but heavily utilize public transit. I wanted to list my car with a car-sharing program endorsed by LA Metro since it would help people get rid of their cars. It's a huge mess in Orange County. The planned OC street car doesn't even connect to Santa Ana College well at all. I have a lot of insight into improvements as a SoCal native, but I don't know how to help. I'm attending a meeting for the Arrow project that's nearing completion in Redlands this Tuesday and intend to advocate for frequency and direct connection through San Bernardino down to as far as Oceanside. I also would love to create some new lines the use mostly existing rail and connect multiple lines without transfer to Metrolink. How should I go about all this most effectively?
One reason why it was/is possible to integrate interurban and subway in Tokyo is that the technical standards are so close that it is possible. This is not really the case in other places.
About Seattle (and Los Angeles): It would be possible to leave the "two rooms and a bath"-style (I know, it is not correct, the originals had a floating middle section) to a longer articulated train (comparable, for example to the new trains for Merseyline or Tyne & Wear Metro). Signalling etc. could remain unchanged.
But being able to do it is part of why the standards converged!
@@RMTransit I still think that it is the other way round, because the standards were close, it was possible to do so…
man you give me hope but i’m scared this stuff’ll never come. :(
Calgary will eventually outgrow its C-Train capacity, particularly in its downtown trunkway. What will they do to boost capacity? Will they need to convert from an LRT to a full rapid rail transit system with exclusive right of way or underground system?
Calgary already has plans to put a line underground downtown, increasing capacity to almost 30,000 an hour. Calgary's LRT is already closer to rapid transit than other rail lines - even "rapid" subway systems.
At 3:27 of the video that Vancouver metro train has a beautiful design. Looks like it's automated, tho'.....
Manila also built a wrong transit line. Line 3 is supposed to be heavy rail since it traverses the most heavily congested corridor of the capital, but settled for light metro instead. Wish this can still be corrected. This is one reason why the Japan International Cooperation Agency recommended that another subway line be built mostly parallel to it, to alleviate some of the congestion from Line 3.
The idea of upgrading trams into trains was so popular that the japanese word "Densha" now combines both meaning
What do you think about the plan in Omaha Nebraska to build a streetcar?
Much like with cycling infrastructure, rail infrastructure needs a centralised design guide that authorities can refer to for their specific needs.
why do you never talk about the karlsruher model with its Trains operating as train and as tram > tramtrain
Which app is better (for the 3 major Canadian Cities they have in common): Citymapper or Rocketman? (Citymapper is clearly better for the global traveller, not that we have a lot of that at the moment, and absolutely brilliant in London, where they issue a multi-modal transit pass and kind-of shamed TfL into creating a decent app--TfL Go).
Meanwhile in México: BRTs everywhere, even when every analysis shows that we need metro and fast train lines. If not, some politician's shitty van routes.
Think of what Los Angeles transit would be if they hadn't broken everything up......
It would probably be a slightly better version of what we have today lol since a lot of the projects being built now are just reinstating old lines
do a vid on Calgary's (lack of) transit!
I've talked lots about Calgary!
Hi Reece and everybody, I am in Miami, Florida, this will be a long post please forgive me. We have a Metrorail line that goes from the southeast Miami Dade to the northwest of the same county but also goes to the massive airport Miami International Airport. Problem with it is that while it is fine for a starter line it hasn't been expanded as much only to the Palmetto Expressway and to the airport, which makes me to question in that since many cities around the US and North America are building Light Rail and Light Metro. I think we should have gotten a Light Rail or Light Metro network instead. Now the county is developing the SMART Plan. Its supposed to provide rapid transit corridors to all major parts of Miami Dade County, The current Metrorail doesn't go to FIU which is one of the biggest Universities in the county, but it does go to UM (If you follow College Football you know the team there). But I haven't heard much of the SMART Plan. I know Brightline is here but that is more Intercity Higher Speed Rail than a regional system. Sorry if this was long but wanted to know if a Light Rail or Light Metro would get more attention and expansion since our system was hardly expanded ever since but we got new Rail cars from Hitachi as Reece pointed out in pervious videos and I got to ride them. Want to know what is Reece and the audience here aspect of our metro systems or lines. Thank you for another fantastic video, keep it up!
Interesting video, but in the U. S., I would say the wrong rail mode is way down the list of mistakes that agencies make. Station placement is the biggest one. No matter what type of rail you use, DART will always have very few riders, and transit modal share in the city (or cities) that it serves will continue to be tiny. BART is certainly using the right mode (big fast trains carrying huge numbers of people across the Bay) but it would double its ridership if it actually acted like a subway line instead of a commuter rail. There should be a lot more stops in San Fransisco and East Bay (where the bulk of the riders come from even without an adequate number of stations). Light rail really isn't the best choice for Seattle, as you don't need the nimbleness. But capacity isn't the biggest issue (not even close). It will be fine for the next 100 years. What won't be fine is the fact that it skipped First Hill, and that the sparsity of stops (and urban lines) will forever doom riders to taking slow buses, even though it will be one of the largest, most expensive systems in North America.
The biggest problem is one you eluded to. Americans simply copy Americans when it comes to transit, despite our horrible record. They not only copied the light rail idea but also the streetcar idea, applying it to places where it simply isn't appropriate (again, look at Seattle). For the really expensive systems (a metro/subway) they focused too much on serving distant areas (often next to the freeway) and not enough on serving the urban core. This again is copying an American idea, but one that has shown to be the wrong approach, not something to emulate. It is mind boggling to think that Seattle's nearest neighbor (Vancouver BC) has a truly outstanding transit system, and yet we are trying to built BART Del Norte instead.
I don't necessarily think the main issue is the layout of networks, though it is an issue. But rather the lack of any half decent feeder bus services in most cities.
@@RMTransit They go together. If you fail to cover the urban core, then the feeder buses are less useful. This is true of BART, DART, Link, RTD and I'm sure several others. It is not true of most systems around the world, older U. S. systems or the DC Metro. The other problem is that if you put all of your money into very expensive long distance trains serving only a handful or riders, you run out of money for decent bus service (whether it feeds the trains or just provides local service).
I would say though, that with all of the flaws of these rail systems that are expensive, poorly designed (or both), it does pail in comparison to the simple lack of decent bus service for relatively low density cities and suburbs that largely make up the country. Sacramento doesn't need light rail, it needs decent bus service (to be fair, at least they didn't break the bank with the light rail).
Reece you're right about Denver but you didn't use the right pics for our regional rolling stock. I'll send you some on discord
Please review Norfolk's transit plans ASAP we need help to save the project from becoming a bungled mess
Where is your video explaining the Tokyo urban railways?
Why I feel like it sound some like the Hong Kong MTR Light rail but I don’t see there a problem maybe. Do you think the light rail has problem RMTransit?
The light rail system isn't great no, I think it was part of The fad around light rail systems rather than the best transit solution
@@RMTransit I see
2:35 - This Yt channel, RM Transit, was named after the Reseau du Metro.
Crenshaw? Wasn't that where Jackie Chan got beaten up in a kitchen during Rush Hour?
I think transit systems are generally better designed in Asia and Europe (with a relatively higher population density in major cities), and thus they are able to make clear distinctions between urban, suburban/regional and intercity. Things are not the best in Australia and New Zealand for transits, but still way better than those found in North America. I think the times when the North American planners were too obsessed with cities designed around driving your own cars had caused problems to transits.
I don’t know the title sounds like
“So you didn’t listen to RM transit…”
6:16 - search " Trolley Parks " .
Showing Bayview station during the introduction was incredibly on point because not only did we build an LRT to do a metro's job, but we built that specific station too small for the incredibly obvious extension of line 2 into Hull that the city has owned all the required land for over 100 years (literally used to be tracks to a rail bridge which is still there). They're building a tram on a car bridge instead, hopefully they can connect it to Rideau Centre down Wellington and have it branch off down Bank to Lansdowne and Billings Bridge so it might be a blessing in disguise
The reason for Portage isn't Bayview Station itself. You don't put 7,000 at a transfer station. It is throughput and dwell times. Bayview itself can accommodate, but the transfer load you'd be putting is too high for any type of rail system, even a high capacity subway.
There's a problem. When most interurban-reginal-rail transitions happened, it was early 20th century and land is cheap (especially after the Kanto earthquake and Tokyo air raid destroying quite a portion of the city's buildings), so constructions like double-or-quadruple-tracking, widening loading gauge and introducing bypass lines are way much easier than today. So I doubt the possibility of updating an LRT-style system into a regional-style one in a modern metropolitan area with acceptable budget.
At 7:16 it looks like the Japanese trains are using a pair of trolley poles. What the hell?
Do high floor vehicles really have higher passenger capacities than 100 low floor ones?
Nothing against Rocketman but I watch RMTransit undergound with whatever other TH-cam videos I want! If you have an Android download NewPipe, it's an open source TH-cam client and perfect for spicing up the train rides.
I'm starting to wonder: is there anything about Japan's transit network which you think could be improved or something outright wrong that Japan's done?
Nippori-Toneri Liner - Built to link the poorly connected Toneri area to the Yananote line at Nippori - to save money the Tokyo Metropolitan Gov built it as a people mover vs a full Subway - it rapidly got swamped with ridership now at 100,000 per day - design spec was 50,000. Trains are 5 Cars with each car being 9m long. That said I don't think any of the Subway lines in the area would have the capacity to add a busy branch, so the city would have needed to build a lot more!
Problem is the Nippori terminus is squeezed above the station forecourt up against and perpendicular to the Keisei line's elevated platforms and a sharp 90 degree curve, so train lengthening isn't possible. I also understand that the crush loaded trains are hitting the maximum axle load for the guideway. Other people movers (Yurikamone and New Shuttle for example had been successful so I could see the City's thinking, but they were built to serve less dense areas (and even the Yurikamone runs longer trains)
@@railotaku considering how little space they have to work with, is there any solution to that problem?
I hear the women riding it would like to be randomly felt up less.
buses i guess