1) I was using the manufacturer's website, which states 327. Maybe that meant for 2 trains attached together.kg2024 wrote:KC's streetcars have a capacity of 150 (mostly standing packed like sardines) (https://kcstreetcar.org/faq/what-is-the-capacity-of-the-kc-streetcar/) not 327.StlAlex wrote: ↑4:43 PM - 5 days agoEverything I mentioned as an advantage of LRT over BRT absolutely still applies to the Green Line, stuff like acceleration, consistency in station gaps, comfort, capacity, etc.stldotage wrote: Again, StlAlex, I'll mostly just respond with "agree to disagree" on most of your points. This final one, though, and matguy's comment below it should be addressed.
The former Green Line Metrolink proposal was not ever proposed as "light rail" in the sense of the Metrolink we know, of course. In-street "light rail" is a streetcar -- i.e., slower with more frequent stops than a light rail system (and lower capacity vehicles).
A Metrolink actual-light rail station is, at its absolute narrowest, 50 feet wide. The proposed Green Line stations would have been much more compressed than that, given that not even the most overly wide city street is built to accommodate that width (Forest Park Avenue, for example). Jefferson just north of Lafayette is ~90 feet wide.
Also with stations spaced under a mile apart, the top speed of the proposed Metrolink would have topped out at, what, 25 mph? Maybe 30 for a stretch with a longer gap in stops? (And arguably it should not go faster than that without obtrusive fencing that would impede the pedestrian experience along the route).
So when we really compare apples to apples here, with the old Green Line Metrolink proposal we have:Does that sound familiar? It's BRT, but with rails. Rails are not a magic transit performance-enhancing drug. The rail line must still connect to important transfer points (i.e., not skirt downtown) and be extensive enough to serve more than a handful of neighborhoods--and be faster/better than a bus to attract new riders along the route. So, we're not actually comparing LRT vs. BRT here. We're comparing Streetcar v. BRT....both of which would cannibalize (funny way to pronounce "improve", but okay) existing bus service.
- a street-running vehicle,
- small/compressed stations compared to an actual dedicated Metrolink right of way
- smaller cars
- more frequent stops than the Red/Blue lines
- slower average speed
- ...and hopefully dedicated lanes, signal priority, and pre-board payment.
KC's streetcars have a capacity of 327. New Flyer's longest articulated bus has a designed capacity of 116.
Every rendering we saw of the LRT, yes I'm aware none of it was actual design it was just concept, had "obtrusive" barriers separating the tracks from the driving lanes. On the website it also described that it would be grade separated with either fencing or a curb. So far, none of the BRT concept renderings include any barrier to make the bus lanes separated from tbe car lanes. The technology the Green Line was using was most similar to the Pheonix Valley Metro, which has a max speed of 35 MPH, runs all in-street, widest stations are 40 ft, has stations 0.5 to 0.75 miles apart, etc. This was, in fact, one of the examples on the LRT website too.
We are comparing in-street light rail to BRT. Not a downtown streetcar, not a 1900s streetcar, modern in-street light rail.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
The Green Line LRT plan was going to include full "secure platform" fencing and gates on the same 11' wide station islands which would have made them look like ridiculous jail cells in the the center of the road. This is not the case with the BRT plan which will reduce cost and make the stations much more visually appealing and welcoming. Also lets face it, metal fencing along any curbline directly adjacent to traffic lanes would face endless damage and maintenance issues.
Every rendering and diagram of the BRT concept has shown curbs separating the lanes from traffic if you would look at them:
2) In your concept rendering, you can clearly see at the bottom there is no curb between tne bus lane and the driving lane, and there are plenty more renderings that show no curb seperation.
3) The Secure Platform project is a totally separate discussion from this one. But you know people will argue the BRT is unsafe, just like they argue current buses and trains are unsafe.
4) I can't believe we have fallen to the level of arguing that fencing will raise maintenance costs while you're advocating for a system as inefficient and costly to maintain as buses.
Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
