Why (Automated) Light Metros are So Special
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- 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!
=WALL DECALS=
Check out the AllThingsTransport Etsy store here: www.etsy.com/s...
FTC Disclosure: This video is sponsored. 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.epidemicso...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Thumbnail Art: / enumchase
Thumbnail Based on Imagery from DrDewott
=PATREON & RUclips 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 RUclips! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
RUclips Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.su...
=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!
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I know this would be a massive time investment, but I'd really like it if you'd do videos where you talk about how you would improve the transit of cities with bad or mediocre public transportation networks. Maybe I'm mistaken, but to me it feels like most of your videos are dedicated towards the pros and cons of individual aspects of transit infrastructure, as well as that of decent or good networks in fairly transit-friendly cities. That's not a bad thing, but for those of us living in areas with pretty poor transit it all feels very abstract and doesn't give us a concrete picture of how much better things could be.
A city like Indianapolis would be a good model for a video like this. No regional cooperation with the suburbs, hostile state government, the center city’s land area is gargantuan, rail rights of way squandered to build trails (difficult to add rail later), several billion dollars in highway projects ongoing with more on the way.
Perhaps places like Houston, TX and Jacksonville, FL would also be good candidates. Both are very sprawled and car-centric, with barely any rail transport at all (dunno if I should even count the People Mover in the latter as transit, sounds like a tourism thing). Highways crisscross both cities. Perhaps also Phoenix, AZ; looks like it's in a similar situation to Houston.
@@DiamondKingStudios I actually had Houston in mind when writing my comment, but didn't want to let my personal bias slip in by making suggestions.
@@IBeforeAExceptAfterK sure are a lot of cities he could do with this idea here in North America it seems.
@@eriklakeland3857 Problem is: When you have hostile government (an all too common problem), you're hosed no matter how good a plan you have, especially when the hostile government actively considers bad transit to be a feature, not a bug.
I think that the trams of hanover have one of the best looking trains
I would like a video on how to design for high frequency.
lookin kinda rad with the yellow witcher eyes lol
I'm always very confused about "light rail", "light metro" and "medium-capacity rail transit system". Especially since those terms have different meanings depending on the country. I'm from France and here "light metro" (métro léger) means a tramway that is partially underground or has grade separation, which fits with the American definition of "light rail". In France VALs are just considered metros and not "light metros". We don't make the difference between high and low capacity metros. As for "light rail", we usually just call it tramways ("light rail" often is a way not to call tramways by their name).
Light metro is called a 'medium-capacity' system built to light rail specifications operating on a dedicated right of way, with a capacity greater than a light rail vehicle (tram/streetcar) but less than typical heavy-rail rapid passenger trains.
This. I'm from Europe too and I often get lost between all the various train types.
In Singapore "medium-capacity rail transit system" means using heavy-rail rolling stock but with platforms half the length & half the no. of cars per train e.g. 3 cars per Circle & Downtown Line train. With platforms only 70m long though there doesn't appear to be much expandability other than increasing frequency (& maybe upgrading the signalling system), & it doesn't sound very cost-effective to me, since the 2 fully-underground lines cost ~S$30b to build, with tunnels being the same size as on regular heavy rail
I'm from the UK and I've never heard someone distinguish between light rail and light metro before. We have railways, the underground, and trams. There are some light rail lines but the difference is generally legislative.
@@eldrago19 - I agree with you. Its the North Americans like to have a name for everything and to confuse the rest of the world with their terminology. The reality is there is light and heavy rail with light rail being street and dedicated right of way and heavy rail having dedicated right way only.
Have you ever heard of the Vancouver Skytrain I think you would like it
Is this a joke?
@@Daniel-eg7hj What do you think?
LOL
@@Daniel-eg7hj No
Actually, speaking of automated metros, I would like to see more connections drawn between a train and an elevator. I think they share a lot in common, and can possibly find solutions to their own problems from another. Just my two cents.
They absolutely have similarities, but they are more limited than you might think!
If I remember correctly, in the first electrified Metro in New York, the motors for the trains were basically elevator motors used sideways
@@RMTransit You missed something about successful BRT: biarticulated buses. These vehicles have capacities of 250-300+ people and can be 25-30 meters long. They result in much less labor per rider. Also, the prohibition of turning movements across BRT corridors, off board fare collection, and two lanes per direction to allow for passing and extra bus throughput all make BRT successful in places like China and Latin America. Of course, their cities also have huge boulevards to fit these corridors (Santiago has the widest street in the world, and it has BRT; interesting, Chile, now considered a first world country owing to the Chilean Miracle, still has successful BRT in part because of these vehicles). In such relatively narrow circumstances, BRT can attain speeds and capacities comparable to heavy metros at much lower cost. But without these huge buses, many of which are illegal in North America because of different regulatory requirements, and of course, without these enormous boulevards, BRT often struggles to make a fast, efficient system.
I've actually been on an elevator that runs up and down a >100% grade slope from a parking lot into a boiler/generator room on what look like train tracks. The doors and buttons are exactly like those used in normal elevators but the track rails are of the type used on railroads, and were fastened to ground with Pandrol clips just like on modern train tracks. In the center of the track was, of course, a pulley. If I recall correctly, the system was built by Otis.
@@unconventionalideas5683 Of course, BRT still has the problem of using more energy due to greater rolling resistance of rubber tires, as well as vehicle control being harder to automate due to the vehicles not running on rails. (For the last issue, guided bus systems have been built, including ones with a guide rail in the street, but they don't work very well.)
This is the perfect technology to serve the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn with an outer half loop or two. I am utterly amazed by how car centric parts of these boroughs are. An automated light metro guideway would not be out of place on some of those gargantuan streets (Kings Highway, Fordham Rd)
We should start by repurposing the ~8 mi of JFK AirTrain with NYC Subway branding and fare structure, an infill station or 2, and some new rolling stock. From there, the amount of promising alignments for this technology are endless. Imagine fast and direct travel from JFK Airport to Flushing/College Point or Washington Heights Metro North to #6 train near Parkchester. The high off peak frequency would make the most out of the numerous connections to radial Subway and regional rail lines.
I’ve been a fan of automated light metros since living in Toulouse. Which makes me think that you should do a video on the VAL from France.
Another interesting aspect would be the REM de l’est in that it’s as much an urban planning / real estate project as it is a transit project.
VAL video is on its way :)
@@RMTransit Yes VAL is finally getting its own video 😍
As a Frenchman I kinda have a love/hate relationship with VALs. On the one hand I love Lille's metro retrofuturistic design and they are incredibly flexible and fast, but on the other hand 2.08 m is way too narrow to make à decent rapid transit system. Both Lille and Toulouse now face overcrowding and unfortunately they can't get rid of the narrowness of the rolling stock, even though they both have extended their platforms to run four-car trains.
@@jandron94 Oui tout à fait la ligne b du métro de Rennes est au gabarit 2m65 ce qui est un progrès. Par contre je suis un peu sceptique sur le CityVal mais à voir... La ligne C de Toulouse elle aussi aura un gabarit large. Finalement à l'époque réduire la largeur pour faire des économies de bout de chandelle n'était pas la meilleure des idées.
Siemens Mobility est une filiale de l'Allemand Siemens mais les équipes sont françaises et basées à Toulouse. Mais c'est vrai que c'est dommage de ne pas les produire en France (ça explique peut-être le choix de Lille de commander les rames BOA à Alstom pour faire marcher les usines du Nord).
Agreed, took it today from the train station to go home. It's very fast and reliable. I do think that Tisseo (the operator) should increase the off peak frequency of the service. A metro every 5 mins on line A is too low, especially during these covid times.
@@SpectreMk2 Frequency is getting increased in 2023, when Tisséos receives the VAL 208 NG3 series from Siemens. It has temporarily decreased on line A because trains now run in multiple units.
Something that would be helpful would be defining "light metro" and if it is different from "light rail". I assume in this case it just refers to smaller tracks or stock (good) and not sharing grade with cars (bad). Conceptually I agree with the video. Each driver not only has direct cost (pay) but indirect cost (taxes, insurance, etc). Many drivers cost over $100k per year to operate and they need bathroom/snack breaks which can and do interrupt service, as does changing the driver. Then there is scheduling...a driver (like an airline pilot) needs a min/max number of hours per day. Some metro lines end service too late or too early just because it's easier to go with that 8/16 hour work shift. Light metro doing half the capacity but twice the frequency of "heavy metro" is a huge wine for light metro. It would result in less maintenance cost and downtime. Heavy trains (especially freight) will actually depress and shift rails by up to a couple of inches as they go over. As this happens, train wheels hit the next length of track at a bad angle and cause ware and further track distortion. Welding the lengths together, using quality joint bars, sleepers, and ballast can help, but ware is always an issue. I know an Amtrak train near where I live is speed limited because the tracks are so crooked from heavy freight use and CP is to cheap to fix it. As for Vancouver though I don't think that particular stock is on the light side (maybe because of the linear induction motors). In America, we have so many crazy laws and regulations hamstringing rail including minimum weights for passenger trains for "safety".
It is not about weight, but about choosing smaller but wider trains, basicly short metro trains over light rail, which often is just bigger trams.
If you run an automated system, you have to run it on dedicated track, without non automated trains.
Light metro is called a 'medium-capacity' system built to light rail specifications operating on a dedicated right of way, with a capacity greater than a light rail vehicle (tram/streetcar) but less than typical heavy-rail rapid passenger trains.
@Zaydan Naufal It's not drivers earning 100k, but costing 100k to the transport agency (which includes other overhead costs, depending on country, like social security contributions, but also shift managers etc.).
Fun fact: a mid-seventies study of transit options in Denver recommended automated rail, even at that early date. But they built light rail instead, probably because it was less risky technologically.
I blame the evil car-addicted suburbanite named Jason Spelts.
You’re putting out videos at an impressive pace mate
Thanks Morgan! Good to be back to my regular schedule!
"... If you mess up your upgrade ..."
*Shows Ottawa*
Could you please do a video where you break down all the rail classifications that you refer to in your videos (light rail, light metro, heavy rail, heavy metro, etc). I’d like to know what defines the different terms and the pros and cons of the each. If you have already made such a video, accept my apologies - I’ve looked but not found.
I am new to all the transit terminology. Is there a good source that defines the difference between types of transit. like Light Rail, Light Metro, Metro, Commuter Rail.
Yes! Stay tuned for a future video on this!
@@RMTransit I also need this video.
Unfortunately all languages don't have the same expressions and definitions, which makes it even more confusing. In French "light metro" actually means light rail. As for the German term "Stadtbahn", it doesn't really have an equivalent.
@@RMTransit WOOOOOOO
@@unlapras9365 _Stadtbahn_ would be like _premetro_ I think i.e. rail vehicles that run both on streets & tunnels for significant stretches
The mode of transportation similar to the Stadtbahn in Germany is something that should be favorable in many North American cities. In the city center or in dense urban areas, several lines can be merged and they can be completely grade separated and operate as a defacto (light) metro. This gives all the benefits of the metro where there is demand for it. Outside dense urban areas, it isn't justified to e.g. go completely underground since costs just explode. And implementing transit that is most cost effective should be the goal for new transit systems.
Those lines could then be operated on separated lanes in the middle of the wide American streets. They wouldn't even need to be grade separated as this would - again - rise the cost where demand doesn't justify that. Then, transit oriented development can be built around those stations decreasing car dependency in American cities. This would of course also require zoning adjustment which is - like so often - the key problem of American cities.
You can't really automate anything that isn't grade separated though. If you rely on line of sight operation for safety, as many Stadtbahn systems still do outside of tunnels, you're always going to need a driver. And line of sight operation caps maximum speeds increasing journey times. I'm impressed by what many German cities have managed to do to increase speed and reliability of their Stadtbahn systems, reducing the number of grade crossings and using distant signalling and using level crossings instead of intersections wherever practical. But it's not ever going to be as good as a light metro out of the box.
@@Croz89 Automation is a good thing but automation doesn't justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars or more in order to have full grade separation if demand isn't there. And in American cities, this will often be the case since the vast majority of cities consist of single family zoning.
Besides costs, the other major benefit of automation is smaller headways. If the grade separated sections in the city centers operate with something like CBTC, they can have this benefit by operating half automated at those sections.
Of course, a light metro out of the box is better concerning operation but a metro line is also always better than a bus line. It is a matter of cost, demand and thus, cost-effectiveness.
@@connected-urbanplanningcon4973
You wouldn't save on driver salaries though, and while the headways might be able to be short on interlined city centre sections, frequency per route will still not be able to be very small since you'd need to keep them apart on non-automated sections.
The Stadtbahn systems are fine, but they're basically old tram systems that have been upgraded slowly over many decades. Many Stadtbahn systems have tunnels where surface tracks used to be, which was necessarily very disruptive to their operation. You'd be stuck with a system that's more difficult to increase capacity as your city grows. I think this sort of thing is precisely what Reece is arguing against. Fine if that's what you have already, but I don't think it's really a good choice for a new transit system in many cities.
@@Croz89 Automation only really has an impact on headways if they need to be smaller than 5 minutes. Over that, normal operation works fine. And on routes outside of dense urban areas, there rarely is demand for headways smaller than 5 minutes.
Capacity could still be increased by having high floor trains and longer trains. A 6 car high floor train that operates every 5 minutes is enough capacity for every low and mid rise development. Most Chinese metros operate like that.
As long as urbanization is restricted by single family zoning, the demand isn't going to increase that significantly anyways. If the goal of the city is to transform suburbs to high density urban areas, then of course full grade separation should be applied.
@@connected-urbanplanningcon4973 I think single family zoning really works better with regional rail than light rail. Most light rail systems act like regional rail in low density suburbs anyway. Out there frequency is less important and travel time is more important. A fast, comfortable regional train every 30 minutes is going to be better than a slow, cramped light rail vehicle every 10 minutes. Most people are driving or taking other transit to stations already, so minimising total trip time is important.
That said, it's not to say systems like that can't work. They do fairly well in many mid-tier European cities. But I think it's right to question if it's the best solution going forward. Automation could offset the initial cost of grade separation and it delivers a much better experience with much easier capacity increases in future. It's also risky to assume a low or no-growth model, even in areas with single family zoning, because cities change.
The M5 of the Milan Metro and the Brescia Metro in Italy have the same infrastructure and trains as the Copenhagen Metro! I'd also love to see a video by you about the Milan Metro :)
It can't be understated how low the operating costs are for light metro. A bus in the US usually costs $100-200 USD to operate per hour. I looked at some SkyTrain reports and did some math and a SkyTrain vehicle costs $78 USD to operate per hour. Buses carry about 40 people and a SkyTrain vehicle carries about 130 people. The SkyTrain also goes about twice as fast as buses. You can get amazing service quality and high capacity at a surprisingly low cost.
When you take the operating cost savings and combine it with the way high quality transit affects property values (property tax revenue), light metros are great investments which pay for themselves quickly. Not many cities/lines need the immense capacity that regular metros (especially automated ones) provide, but they do need the service quality.
@rmtransit - it would be interesting to see a financial breakdown of different transit systems, including cost per passenger mile with capital costs, operational costs and funding opportunities (such as real estate developments / taxes). It's almost the crux of the transit argument.
Not a fan of automated when it takes away jobs of drivers.
Northern New Jersey should have an automated light metro!!! They're sorely lacking in higher-speed transit for anything but getting to/from Manhattan and a conventional metro is probably not feasible over such a large area and without really high population density (in most of N. NJ)
They could have a line from Patterson > Passaic > Newark > The Airport > Elizabeth, one from Passaic > Hackensack > Fort Lee > Union City > Jersey City > Bayonne, and one from Orange > Newark > Secaucus Jct. > Journal Square > Downtown JC.
This could incorporate the orphan PATH trains too!
Fully agree. Honestly, automated light metro needs to be a critical part of improving crosstown and circumferential travel in the NYC area. We should start with direct connections between Bronx-Queens-Brooklyn.
@@eriklakeland3857 👆
Northern New Jersey certainly has the population density for a metro. Especially the places bordering NYC like Jersey City and Hoboken.
@@lepjagman 7 line extension to Secaucus
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS ONE!! TURN IT UP!
Haha happy you're excited! I am too! Automated Metro FTW!
The automatic light metro system in Macao (澳門輕軌/Metro Ligeiro de Macau) is so badly planned that it has to suspend operation for the time being. (This system connects the airport and major casinos without reaching major residential areas, then the pandemic came and no tourist arrived.)
I just watch the video about it from 鐵道事務所...The rolling stocks are cool but the struggle to develop it, high construction cost and it goes nowhere is just sucks....and that is just the first rail transport Macau has ever built.
It may causing freezing effect on any attempt to rail construction in the future in both investment and political stage.
@@chongjunxiang3002 Watched the same video & it was saying the reason the rail skirts around the major residential areas (& is thus less useful to locals than the tourists patronising the casinos) is because the alternate option of cutting the rail straight thru those areas was met with protests too, since those areas typically comprise of narrow 1-way roads sandwiched between tall buildings close to one another, so building the rail elevated there means having to build it directly above the narrow roads, & the supporting columns/pillars/piers would end up in the middle of the road, further narrowing it (since they're 1-way there isn't any centre median where the columns could be built along), or on either sides of it (which would make the roads darker by blocking sunlight). Meanwhile building the rail underground would've probably been to expensive. In this case probably a tram system with traffic light priority & tram/bus-only streets might've been more effective.
I live in Plano, Texas and use the DART system. I would like to hear your thoughts on this system.
I might make a full video on it in the future!
Another advantage of automated metro lines is that you do not have problem with driver sickness. A lot of British public transport systems (bus, train and tram) currently have reliability problems because a lot of their drivers are in Covid self-isolation.
They are certainly more resilient to staffing issues!
And strikes and unions of course. The political will to automate the Paris Metro also comes from the fact that RATP workers are known to strike often and Parisians see the disparity in how on strike days Line 1 and 14 continue to plug along while the others sit idle.
Singapore also reduced public bus frequencies previously after quite a no. of bus drivers were infected/went into isolation, but it was believed that bus demand would be lowered by more people working-from-home also
What's the top speed difference between LR and light metro? I thought S700 can do 60mph and REM, too, while SkyTrain typically runs at 50mph?!?
Light Metro should be faster than low floor light rail, probably not a huge difference with high floor though
@@RMTransit I understand the stations could be smaller, but you would need more train sets, meaning your operations/maintenance facility would still be the same size, or am I missing something?
You forgot one of the biggest obstacles to automated light metros. Transit Unions. Labour savings means fewer jobs and the union wants to preserve as many jobs as possible. Converting buses to trains results in a significant loss of jobs as it is, but having drivers in those trains is an olive branch.
Transit systems are chronically understaffed, so it wouldn't be the loss of jobs so much as the loss of overtime. And I'm not that sure that the need for labor would drop anyway, because the new rail line would draw more people onto the transit system. I know Reece prefers to avoid talking politics, which I very much applaud, but I do lament that he never says anything about transit unions when it seems like it would be relevant.
@@j.s.7335 I guess it depends on the system. When Ottawa’s Confederation line opened, OC Transpo had to layoff over 400 bus drivers. Granted they ended up having to hire some back to run the relief buses when the trains were out of order.
I get that he doesn’t want to take sides on political issues, but it certainly can be an obstacle. Ignoring it like an ostrich isn’t helpful.
It's actually not an issue, because most of the times, the drivers just get a different job in the transit agency. In my city, for example, when they automated the U-Bahn, the drivers became "KUSS", which basically means technical assistance if something breaks down, a human "help point" and security at the same time.
@@offichannelnurnberg5894 I guess it depends on the city. As I said here in Ottawa over 400 bus drivers were initially laid off because of a new system with “LRT” trains. One of the reasons given for now going driverless was the union, even though the system is almost 100% automated (in normal operation, all the driver does is push a button to say they are awake).
I would like to see a breakdown of the costs: How much do drivers, energy, maintenance of the trains, tracks and stations (and buying/building those in the first place), monitoring the stations, selling tickets, etc. cost? I suspect that the wages of the drivers are a rather small part of the total cost.
There's a couple of lines like Vienna U6 and Budapest M1 which aren't quite light rail and also not quite light metro. They both have rather specialised rolling stock, which I think some of the low floor North American light rails could learn from, especially Ottawa.
It’s a shame how terribly the Honolulu automated light metro project has gone. From poor design choices to an utter quagmire with utility relocation on Dillingham, that project is a mess and gives automated light metro a bad look.
I want to agree with all this... but I suspect you are underestimating how hard it is to sell elevated railway to the punters.
I think you got almost everything :) I think one thing I would've gotten into more, since you were talking about how ALM as a mode has helped Vancouver retain service on SkyTrain corridors, is the land-use outcomes. SkyTrain has driven so much dense, transit-oriented land use; this has clearly not only accelerated the ridership growth we already had, but helped us retain it during the pandemic. We have so many people living and working around our stations, so when it was time for things to reopen, the natural course of action for many people was to go back to using the train.
The ridership stats show it: we're at around 60% of pre-pandemic ridership levels, which is supposedly tied with New York MTA for the highest % in North America.
I just visited Vancouver, and I get it now! The sky train is the best metro I’ve seen outside of New York (and it’s much more pleasant than New York). I live near SF and converting some of the muni lines to automated light metro would be game changing!
That would also make the muni metro the first pre-metro (light rail/metro hybrid) to be automated if you think about it
Any answers would be appreciated. Does anyone know what the difference between LRT, Light Metro and Heavy Metro are? Is the rail actually different? Or is it the vehicles, or both, or something else?
i think light metro is the perfect combination between LRT and heavy suburban underground railways, it has the best of both! don't have enough capacity during rush hour? add some more cars! need a higher service frequency? no problem, just add more signals! the thing with most LRT lines is that they run on ground level, often with street crossings thus limiting speed. by seperating them from the street level gives way more options
Toronto could of had an Eglinton light metro line based on the SRT, from Malvern and Scarborough Center all the way to Pearson. They're going to have to upgrade the Eglinton LRT line, if they want it to be a proper rapid transit line. Then there's the excessive amount of money they've spent on a subpar LRT line. Very frustrating!
The Eglington LRT is so frustrating compared to what could’ve been. An automated light metro would’ve dominated it in average speed, reliability, off peak frequency.
To miss out so dramatically on those key metrics on a crucial alignment that connects to all those Subway lines, regional rail lines, and the airport is incredibly frustrating.
@@eriklakeland3857 One possible benefit of Eglinton being LRT instead of light metro is that LRT can more easily be introduced to the MiWay BRT corridor, taking it all the way to Mississauga center. I think they'll have to upgrade parts of the eastern section though because it'll be way too slow.
Hi Reece, you tend to make a lot of judgements about the feasibility of specific transit systems. E.G I have noticed that tend to suggest that the cost of operating BRT is expensive. Do you have an details about these costs? E.G the cost of labour; construction costs etc. I used to work as a bus driver and I happen to know that the fuel economy of a bus is about a fifth of a diesel railcar. BTW, do you have any details comparing the cost of diesel railcars DMUs with their electric counterparts (EMUs).
Love this! I wholeheartedly believe that automated light metro should replace light rail entirely. Similar cost to build, but automated light metro brings so much more benefits.
Automated light metros is a sorely need upgrade for the Los Angeles light rail systems. Incredibly long, slow lines with only a few, very painful at-grade sections. In particular the metro green line is currently fully grade separated, has chronically low ridership, poor headways and is not currently interlined (although is proposed to be interlined with the crenshaw line). LA metro should strongly consider keeping the crenshaw line and green line separate and upgrade the green line to light metro.
You should make a video about LRT in Jakarta. Its fully automated light metro.
I’m in Portland, Oregon and for what it’s worth I’m still happy we have the MAX light rail system here and still support its expansion. I wish it was possible to get a true metro or even what you are talking about here but even in a city like Portland which hits above its weight class by US standards it really feels like things are stalled and we won’t see much improvement in that system anytime soon. I guess the Division Street BRT is coming online this year so maybe it could be a foot in the door for more expansion in the future. I’d be happy with just a tunnel downtown for the MAX since right now it just crawls over the ancient steel bridge and ends up taking forever just because of compromised design.
I was talking to some people about the downtown tunnel recently. I walked away a bit optimistic, bc it sounds like the main hurdle for it is cost (the feasibility study estimated $3-4.5B), but Trimet has a pretty good record when it comes to cost and could probably do it for much less. The Steel Bridge bottleneck is the big issue, but having its own right of way downtown would be an awesome step towards upgrading it into a light metro.
I like this vid. What you said towards the end about being constrained to one technology is exactly what went down with the Scarborough RT. I didn't care for the subway replacement of the RT, but I certainly did not want LRT. The SRT while being a political pawn conscripted to Scarborough, it could have been a comprehensive system throughout the borough, if the proper vision took shape in the 90's. Still could extend Line 2, but to a certain point, and done.
Look forward to that video.
A very interesting system for solving the problems you mentioned is the TSB (Transport System Bögl) from Germany. It’s an automated alternative to light rail based on Transrapid technology while being way less expensive than a traditional metro. Maybe you find it an interesting thing to cover in a future video.
And TSB can handle hills much better than rail.
I'm still surprised that nobody is talking about this system...
And that there isn't any city (especially german) already building one of these...
As it sounds like a really good technology and with the advantages in curve radius, in steeper gradients, higher speeds (up to 120km/h right?) and in short construction time + low cost there has to be some niche cases where it would perfectly fit in..
Skybus proposed for Pittsburgh was killed in 1972. I was so enthusiastic about it, but in retrospect the LRT is fine, if a bit slower than the rubber tired people mover would have been. For one thing, Skybus would have required structures at or closing of many grade crossings. Pittsburgh would have had to refit ugly elevated stations with expensive elevators had they built it. I've never been stranded in a wheel chair facing a broken elevator while desperate to use the bathroom, but it happens everyday to countless numbers. Also the concrete viaducts need major refurbishment after a few decades. Light metros are difficult to pay for in a leadership void where commitment to transit is scarce, as you mentioned. Maybe Buffalo could automate its mini metro and just have operators take over each train for the one third of the line that runs on the surface.
I would watch a video on how to design a rail system for sure
I'd like to see a video on how you would go about upgrading a light rail to a light metro (as someone from Seattle trying to advocate for better service)
In Seattle it's basically too late. Our infrastructure is incredibly sensitive to our rolling stock; the dampers for the tracks underneath UW and the reengineering behind the tracks on I 90 are tuned specifically for our type of light rail train
Totally agree about the super frequent service being a MAJOR benefit... ESPECIALLY when it comes to transfers. Not having to think about transfers is GOLDEN. My wife was really annoyed the other day when the M-Line was down to a single train every 12 minutes on a holiday Sunday evening... When the train usually comes every 3-4 minutes, anything over 10 minutes becomes a major inconvenience.
Another MAJOR advantage of Light Metro over Light Rail or Heavy Rail... is that overhead stations are actually viable and not massive hulking structures. Go to Bangkok and check out their "BTS SkyTrain" stations and the 150m platforms. I know Bangkok's a MUCH larger city, but still... those HUGE structures really wouldn't fly in a city building their first line.
As much as I decry the Canada Line's 40m platforms as being inadequate, you have to admit they're almost cute when they're above ground. 60-80m I think is a sweet spot, especially if you allow for potential expansion to 120m (at least at potential high-traffic stations)
I think a great city to adopt light metro would be Winnipeg. It’s midsized (only has around 800k people), and while they’ve doubled down on brt, the T shape of the city would be great for two light metro lines crossing each other in the downtown. Of course there’s tons of sprawl, but they’re literally a bus viaduct, not so good.
Wish you had gone just a tiny bit more into the exact differences between a Light rail which are mostly grade seperated anyway and a light metro systems are, theres a lot of crossover so hard to sometimes get an idea what exactly the advantages are.
You know what sucks, even though the Vagas Loop sucks balls! Didn’t keep any promise (including driverless cars), yet they got the green light to make more money wasting projects over much needed and cheaper alternatives to public transit they could have built.
Reece hasn't convinced me that automated or autonomous light metro solves all the problems but can be used as part of a properly planned public transport/transit network.
Each city needs to have a public transport/transit system that suits the city's topography, its car centric urban design and surrounding communities. A good public transport/transit system needs a mixture of local bus, high frequency bus and/or rapid bus or surface based light rail and if the city has existing heavy rail corridor/s then passenger rail services is integrated into bus, rapid bus and/or light rail system.
Melbourne is the example on how bus, light rail and heavy rail passenger services are integrated.
A lot of old rail corridors that are unused still exist, a perfect example being in south quebec where quite a few of the old lines that got closed and ripped up where turned into bike paths. When the Mont-Saint-Hilaire exo3 line inevitably becomes a REM line, I wouldn't be shocked if a branch was made on the old rail corridor to connect Granby with stops at Greenfield, St Bruno's southern suburbs, Chambly, Richelieu, Marrieville, Rougemont and Saint-Césaire along the way.
The rail to trail trend has been a net negative for sure. My hometown has squandered its best transit rights of way for trails while we spend billions on highway projects. It can be politically difficult to add transit later after a trail is made.
@@eriklakeland3857 I say the solution is simple: tell the people who want those trails for recreational cycling to take a hike.
The other opportunity would be to extend the rail line out to the townships, maybe even down to Sherbrooke and have high speed rail there, with a branch line down the Richelieu valley. REM makes sense were there are significant real estate possibilities (that's the REM model) - whether Exo3 gets converted depends on that math.
@@rbejva I'm not so sure enough traffic to and from the townships exists to justify that beyond maybe rebuilding the line between St Jean and Farnham. Hell when it comes to places outside the 60km mark Drummondville seems a better candidate because if Exo3 gets turned into a REM line and extended to Sainte Hyesaine extending it beyond would just require a straight line through flat farmland.
@@ZontarDow I wonder to what extent “build it and they will come” is applicable. Can new lines generate enough growth outside Metropolitan Montréal over 25 to 50 years to justify their construction? And if that’s the case, it would be sensible to build out to Ste. Hyacinthe / Drummondville as well as out to the Townships.
1:11 you do realize link light rail is a glorified american light rail in a tunnel
its amusing that some people even in seattle confuse it for a subway
seattle should build ws+ballard link as light metro
I agree there are a number of cities that are falling into or have fallen into what you might call a "Tram Trap" in terms of transit (you could also use "Light Rail Trap" but it's not as alliterative). I can think of a couple of cities in the UK that are at various stages of this, but I bet there's many more in the US.
One grouper apposed to automated rail are transport/ driver unions, automated trains don't pay union dues afterall. Now days it's hard enough getting any rail let alone automated. I hope more systems utilize automated rail in the future.
The Victoria line is an interesting line ,automatic from day one in 1968 ,I travel on it quite a bit and by the time you reach the way out passage another train is approaching and the speed they enter the stations even the terminus at Brixton or Walthamstow the trains fly in but they do have long over run tunnels beyond the one at Brixton is in the direction of Hearn hill (future extension loop ?) at these stations they have train operator setting back ie as soon as the train comes in there’s an operator to take it back out as these stations only have two platforms seems to work even in the early days when automation was new it seemed to work and it was the first tube line to use two way communication via carrier wave using the conductor rail as it’s transmission medium now it’s leaked feeder digital cab to control radio called connect which is an interesting subject what metro subway underground etc first used two way radio be an interesting posting ,happy new year ,Mark
Hey, could you make a video about Mumbai's suburban trains and upcoming metro lines. They have to be some of the most used train lines in the world.
I really enjoyed your three fundamentals - I have believed for a long time that 'Rapid Mass Transit' sums it up so well, it has be rapid (faster than cars) and mass (therefore sharing costs by moving a ton of people)
Now we know what RMTransit also stands for
Buffalo's NY NFTA Metro light rail is something you should cover in the future Reece
I remember on the Copenhagen Metro it was so frequent that our train stopped in the tunnel right before the station because there was another train in it. I also love how you can sit at the front and get a pov of a train driver.
Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton would've been good candidates for automated light metros.
In the case of Calgary and Edmonton, fair enough, we started planning and building LRT before automated light metro technology was available. But then we started planning new lines with low-floor tech, when, if we were going to have new rolling stock, why not build light automated metro? The main excuse was the cost of grade separation, but the Green Line and Valley Line are very expensive lines, with a lot of utility relocation and property acquisition and such that is massively driving up costs.
Ottawa? Well, it just seems so bizarre to me that they would waste a perfectly good grade-separated right-of-way and *not* build an automated system. I know, I know, they changed plans when they had already decided on rolling stock. But if you're making such wholesale changes to your plans, why not step back and say, 'Hey, does light rail make sense here, or are we just throwing money away?'
In Ottawa, the original plan was to have it at grade in the suburbs, but then the “2013 Ottawa bus-train crash” occurred, and building new, at grade crossings became politically unacceptable. By then they had already committed to LRT trains.
Light rail systems give better flexibility for operations and system system expansion where is light metro elevated and/or subway narrows operational flexibility and system expansion due to the building on additional infrastructure.
In Ottawa, it was never intended to be fully grade-separated. Requiring grade-separated on the main Confederation Line only came about later, which also isn't the only LRT plans in the TMP documents (The TMP still includes at-grade LRT on Carling, and there are other options too; oh and they don't necessarily require longer platforms either, but actually shorter). Moreover, Ottawa did find that too many vehicles (of different models and makes) are an added maintenance problem.
Pls make a vid about the são paulo metro
I am so used to your recent videos 2023/2024, and I have to say that you have got better over time. This is too much talking head by comparison. What I wanted to see more of here were the good examples of the "light metro." Like the many Europeans who have commented, I think the "light metro" terminology is not helping anyone. A metro is a metro.
I think the fact that the purple line in Maryland isn’t light metro is insane. there is mostly grade separated track except for one section that dumps it onto 2 blocks of a busy street just for it to get delayed. It maybe would have cost an extra billion (possibly nothing more if properly managed) to grade separated track except everything but nope! And now they’re saying it’s gonna run every 7 minutes but with how I see ridership going that may soon become 10 15 20 with costs to run that many trains.
Reese is the transit GOAT
Wow I'm touched! 🐐
You should do a video on transit systems ridership per mile across North America where you see which cities really use their transit systems (Mexican rail systems, Canada's Big 6 cities, NYC, Boston, LA) vs those that don't... Dallas, Houston, Denver, Atlanta, Miami...
To me fully automated metro systems are the peak of human technology. The fact that hundreds of thousands of lives are kept safe with nothing more than software is mind-blowing and the fact that Canada largely pioneered the mass introduction of them with the UTDC Skytrain technology makes me very happy. As proud as I am of that technology sometimes being powered by CANDU reactors, again the pinnacle of safe and reliable nuclear power as was the case with the Scarborough Line...
I’m not sure if you’ve already made a video discussing this in more detail, but if not, could you make a video explaining the differences between light rail and light metro? It would help clarify things when you were comparing the advantages of using one over the other in this video.
The lakeshore streetcar used to go to port credit, and then during WW2 it went to the smallarms plant at the foot to Dixie rd. Until the last few years the TTC ran the bus service from long branch to port credit GO. Why not run a trolley bus on the lake shore.
You never mention trolly busses, their electric, quiet, and don’t interfere with traffic much more then a bus. Building the infrastructure can be done quickly and cheaply.
Gothenburg in sweden allegedly planned to get an automated light metro back in the 1960s. Today, the city's public transport is often seen as a failure due to the lack of speed, capacity and comfort. They didn't build any metro line but only trams, which currently have a maximum speed of 60 km/h and a maximum length of 30 m.
Some of the current projects aren't planned to be finished until around 2035-2040, but they still not nearly as significant as the projects in these older plans. For example, there is still no plan for a metro despite residents advocating for it during many years. The largest project right now is only for regional and commuter rail, which has led to some controversy as the residents in the city are neglected in favour of people commuting from further away.
Car usage is, due to this, so widespread that a fee of around 3 euros is taken from people traveling in or out though the inner city during peak traffic. Despite this, roads are nealy unusable during that time.
While some light metro may be "light", I that a better name is "intermediate capacity" or "medium capacity" metro. SkyTrain mark 3 cars only weigh about 10% less per meter of length compared with TTC t1 cars.
I could see automated light metros working well in regional/rural areas, though infrastructure could be expensive (even if it's cheaper in the long term)
Siemens has been testing two types of driverless train operations in Germany, an S-bahn commuter train in Hamburg and a fully autonomous streetcar in Potsdam. The OpEx implications of driverless trains at grade by mid-decade are huge.
Kuala Lumpur is full of automated metro. And they run fine! You should really come to Kuala Lumpur
I know! Same technology as the Vancouver SkyTrain on the Kelana Jaya Line!
Except Ampang & Sri Petaling Line, Monorail...and Sunway BRT
Before SBK only Kelana Jaya Line is automated.
@@chongjunxiang3002 Yea but we do have future projects to come such as MRT putrajaya line and LRT Klang line. For Ampang and Sri Petaling line, the trains are somewhat automatic. From what I've seen, the drivers are there to monitor and close the doors. The train moves, and open it doors automatically
make video of Lahore metro pleas
In the future!
Replacing the heavy rail 25kV AC Deux-Montagnes line by light metro: Increase system capacity: Fail, Decrease transit time: 1 min saved, ok., Lower Cost: Massive Fail. ;-)
There is a mention about a video proposing downgrading some Metros to Light Metros, but I can't find it. Anyone have the link?
Other people have commented on it and I agree looking into a specific city would be very interesting. I think Cleveland Ohio would be a very good case study. Growing up in the suburbs we would always drive downtown for sporting events and other attractions. I moved to Chicago a few years ago and I didn't realize how much of a joy and convenience it would be to take the train. I had some experience since a large portion of my family lives in Canada in the GTA and we would occasionally take a train here or there.
Cleveland has the least popular heavy rail in the USA but is the 18th largest CSA in America. I'm sure automated light metro would do very well connecting Cleveland from the east side to the west side
Sydney metro is fully automated rapid transit system of a 113km stand alone system, four major lines and 46 stations. The longest and fastest automatic metro in the world.
I think that in this day and age, where automated metros are a widespread successfully implemented technology, that cities around the world have no excuse but to consider it going forward as their transit core. Their operating costs are inexpensive and they can achieve a PPHPD similar to heavy metros since they can achieve super frequent headways. To me, this looks like the work of influential politicians with LRT companies in their pockets since the decided LRT routes could easily take the opportunity to grade separate their entire network.
It frustrates me, particularly in North America, that LRT's continue to be the technology of choice (and I am talking about LRT systems found in places like in Seattle, Minneapolis, and Calgary) for a city's core transit spine when superior technology exists. I know that there are a lot of factors surrounding each city but I almost think that it would almost be worth it for cities to slowly convert their existing LRT core networks into grade-separated automated metros instead of extending the LRT lines. Specifically Edmonton comes to mind here.
I have no idea why Ottawa didn't go with an Automated metro with their O-Line network since it's all grade separated anyways.
There's hope for North American "LRT" though. If Montreal can brand REM as "light rail" I'm sure someone can sell something similar in other American cities as "light rail".
For sure, I agree :) . The marketing of LRT's vs. automated metros is so perplexing to me.
As a transit user, I would be more likely to be sold on a grade separated network being implemented in my neighborhood (elevated or underground is fine for me, personally) than a less frequent glorified streetcar system. But that's just me lol.
This leads me to believe that LRT companies are involved more politically than what meets the eye lol.
@@MS-ud6xd The companies selling LRT are all perfectly capable of producing a metro system. I do think it might have more to do with the inability of the relevant officials to think outside the box, instead just sticking in cookie cutter solutions found in other North American cities rather than tailoring a solution to fit the needs of the city itself.
You really failed to define what the difference between light rail and light metro are in this video so it's hard to understand arguments for what makes one better or worse than the other in specific use cases (like you are trying to do) without the baseline knowledge of what those differences are.
I live in Calgary and when looking at our light rail system it has some of the properties of the light metro you are describing and but is titled and looks like light rail. You NEED to give definitions if you are going to make discussion videos like this in the future for an audience outside your long-term subscribers.
A good follow-uo video would be automated heavy rail and major subway systems
Metro's are great, but why "Light" Metro? Are we also gonna have a Light RMTransit? And a Light Reese ?
It's interesting how you ravage about all the benefit of light metro, while monorail have the exakt same benefit with put the drawbacks...
And.. well. The cost of busses is not quite as high as you seam to think.
any opinions and or plans to do a video on Honolulu’s soon to be open automated medium metro? it’s insanely over budget and behind schedule but I feel this is a game changer for our island and give us the potential to eventually have one of the best transit networks in America.
I'm not a big fan of automated mainly because it takes away driver positions. So many people find that they love being transit operators. Yet their positions are disappearing.
You only failed to explain more in depth what an automated light metro is, searching it on RUclips brings only your video and google is no helper either.
The Ottawa O-Train confederation line should have been this style
WhatsApp os the diference between metro and light metro alter all? Just the car count?
I'm interested in a video about how to design a rail system for high frequencies.
people switching to bikes is not a bad thing. Bikes are the solution to everything from medium density to very low density areas. There is no frequency problem, and grade separated infrastructure is much cheaper. With a 20mph e scooter you can basically meet or exceed train average speeds, on a line that has far more frequent and convenient exits. e scooters also have the benefit of being compatible with most public transit
Try talking about Jerusalem Israel rail system through the city
I stil don't see what a light metro rolling stock in any different of light rail...
thats a great peace, but I'm disappointed that there's nothing from the uk,
Hi Reece! Very interesting video. At 15:55 do you mean that a tram has to be twice as long as a light metro to carry the same people? I don't really get it? Maybe because the frequency of a tram has to be much lower due to shared right of ways? Also, I find it a bit difficult to tell the difference between full-scale metros and light rail sometimes. Are Madrid line 2 or Paris line 11 light metros? And what is REM? A light suburban rail line? Thanks :)
Trams are limited in width and when they are low floor they use space very inefficiently! They also struggle to operate at the same frequency!
I will do a future video with more clarity on modes!
I love the tyne and wear metro because of this, it’s so cool to think that they were the first light metro in england
Sydney metro doesn’t even have a schedule it just turns up about every 2 minuetes
the sequel to "dont do drugs, kids": dont build your transit at grade, kids.
Cool video!
Thanks!
😀 😃 🙂 👍
Pretty good!