Light rail

Encyclopedia : L : LI : LIG : Light rail

---

---

 

For specific light rail systems, many of which use the words "light rail" as part of their name, see list of light rail transit systems.

"LRV" redirects here. For , see .

Light rail or light rapid transit (LRT) refers to a form of urban rail transit that utilizes equipment and infrastructure that is typically less massive than that used for rapid transit systems, with modern light rail vehicles usually running along the system.

Light rail is the successor term to tram (streetcar or trolley in North American English) in many locales, although the term is most consistently applied to modern or modernised tram or trolley operations employing features more usually associated with metro or subway operations, including exclusive rights-of-way, multiple unit train configuration and signal control of operations.

The term light rail is derived from the British English term light railway long used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. The term was adopted in the 1970s, particularly in the United States, as a conscious break from the "obsolescent" image of streetcars. It is sometimes used largely for political reasons; in Toronto, Canada the city Transit Commission had to rename a recent project to build a dedicated right of way for one of its streetcar lines as a "new, modern LRT" in order to obtain the support of local elected officials, and then change it back to a "normal, familiar streetcar" to be accepted by the area's residents (the actual project was the same the entire time). However most tramway enthusiasts are not plagued by the obsolescent image of "tramcars" and still prefer the term tramway when referring to street based systems with tramway type infrastructure. Very few modern light rail systems actually qualify as light railways in the original meaning of the term.

Light rail traces its pedigree to street railways, whereas rapid transit (metro) technology evolved from steam commuter operations, such as were seen in London, New York City, and Chicago.

Light rail systems are almost universally operated by electricity delivered through overhead lines, although several systems are powered through different means, such as the Docklands Light Railway, which uses a standard third rail for its electrical power, and trams in Bordeaux, France which use a special third-rail configuration in which the rail is only powered while a tram is on top of it (making it safe to install third rails even on city streets). Several systems in Europe, as well as a few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains, including the River LINE in New Jersey (opened in 2004), the O-Train in Ottawa (opened in 2001), and the upcoming SPRINTER in northern San Diego County, California (projected to be opened by late 2007). Diesel operations are chosen in corridors where lower ridership is expected (and thus do not justify the expense of the electric power infrastructure) or which have an "interurban" nature with stations spaced relatively far apart (electric power provides greater acceleration, making it essential for operations with closely-spaced stations). Operations with diesel-powered trains can be an interim measure until ridership growth and the availability of funding allow the system to be upgraded to electric power operations.

Attempting to define \"light rail\"

Most rail technologies, including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway are considered to be "heavy rail" in comparison. A few systems such as people movers and personal rapid transit could be considered as even "lighter," at least in terms of how many passengers are moved per vehicle and the speed at which they travel. Monorails are also considered to be a separate technology. Light rail systems can handle steeper inclines than heavy rail, and curves sharp enough to fit within street intersections (though this is hardly true for all light-rail lines). They are typically built in urban areas, providing frequent service with small, light trains or single cars.

The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems. There is a significant amount of overlap between the technologies, and it is common to classify streetcars/trams as a subtype of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation. The two general versions are:

1. The traditional type, where the tracks and trains run along the streets and share space with road traffic. Stops tend to be very frequent, but little effort is made to set up special stations. Because space is shared, the tracks are usually visually unobtrusive.
2. A more modern variation, where the trains tend to run along their own right-of-way and are often separated from road traffic. Stops are generally less frequent, and the vehicles are often boarded from a platform. Tracks are highly visible, and in some cases significant effort is expended to keep traffic away through the use of special signaling, level crossings with gate arms or even a complete separation with non-level crossings. At the highest degree of separation, it can be difficult to draw the line between light rail and metros, as in the case of London's Docklands Light Railway or Wuppertal's Schwebebahn hanging rail system, which would likely not be considered "light" were it not for the contrast between it and the London Underground. Increasingly, light rail is being used to describe any rapid transit system with a fairly lower frequency compared to heavier mass rapid systems such as the London Underground or the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore).

Many light rail systems — even fairly old ones — have a combination of the two, with both on road and off-road sections. In some countries (esp. in Europe), only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed right of way are not regarded as light rail, but considered distinctly as streetcars or trams. However, the requirement for saying that a rail line is "separated" can be quite minimal — sometimes just with concrete "buttons" to discourage automobile drivers from getting onto the tracks.

There is a significant difference in cost between these different classes of light rail transit. The traditional style is often less expensive by a factor of two or more. Despite the increased cost, the more modern variation (which can be considered as "heavier" than old streetcar systems, even though it is called "light rail") is the dominant form of urban rail development in the United States. The Federal Transit Administration helps to fund many projects, but as of 2004, the rules to determine which projects will be funded are biased against the simpler streetcar systems (partly because the vehicles tend to be somewhat slower). Some cities in the U.S. (e.g. San Pedro, California) have set about building the less expensive streetcar lines themselves or with only minimal federal support. Most of these lines have been "vintage" or "heritage" railways, using refurbished or replica streetcars harkening back to the first half of the 20th century. However, a few, such as the Portland Streetcar, use modern vehicles. There is a growing desire to push the Federal Transit Administration to help fund these startup lines as well.

Light rail is generally powered by electricity, usually by means of overhead wires, but sometimes by a live rail, also called third rail (a high voltage bar alongside the track), requiring safety measures and warnings to the public not to touch it. In some cases, particularly when initial funds are limited, diesel-powered versions have been used, but it is not a preferred option. Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City, are automatic, dispensing with the need for a driver; however, such systems are not what is generally thought of as light rail. Automatic operation is more common in smaller "people mover" systems than in light rail systems, where the possibility of grade crossings and street running make driverless operation of the latter inappropriate for safety/security reasons. However this is obviously not true in completely separated light rail systems such as the Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

A growing area of interest is systems which are described as ultra light rail. Ultra light rail schemes are designed to offer high cost effectiveness and also easy deployment by using modern techniques and materials to dramatically reduce the weight of the vehicles. Ultra light vehicles cannot as a result co-exist with heavy rail or even most light rail systems as the light construction, comparable to that of a car or bus, is insufficiently strong to take an impact with a conventional train. It is however pefectly adequate in the event of collisions with road vehicles or other ultra light rail vehicles. Keeping the weight down allows for energy efficiency comparable with or better than a bus and regular stopping points using nothing more than a cheap petrol engine and flywheel. In addition the low weight reduces the cost of track and civil engineering and thus the otherwise high initial construction costs.

History

From the mid-19th century onwards, horse-drawn trams (or horsecars) were used in many cities around the world. In the late 1880s electrically-powered street railways became technically feasible following the invention of a trolley system of collecting current by American inventor Frank J. Sprague who installed the first successful system at Richmond, Virginia. They became popular because roads were then poorly-surfaced, and before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the advent of motor-buses, they were the only practical means of public transport around cities.

The light rail systems constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries typically only ran in single-car setups. Some rail lines experimented with multiple unit configurations, where streetcars were joined together to make short trains, but this did not become common until later. When lines were built over longer distances (typically with a single track) before good roads were common, they were generally called interurban streetcars in North America or radial railways in Ontario.

In North America, many of these original light-rail systems were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Beginning in the 1980s, some cities began reintroducing light-rail systems that are more like subway or metro systems that operate at street level. These light-rail systems include modern, multi-car trains that can only be accessed at stations that are spaced anywhere from a couple blocks to a mile or more apart. Some of these systems operate within roadways alongside automobile traffic, and others operate on their own separate right-of-way.

As with other rail systems, the rail gauge has had considerable variations, but today standard gauge is dominant. Narrow gauge was common in many earlier systems, although as systems merged or died out, old lines were often upgraded, removed, or replaced. Some systems still use other track gauges, however.

Advantages of light rail

Light rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure does not need to be as substantial, and tunnels are generally not required as is the case with most metro systems. Moreover, the ability to handle sharp curves and steep gradients can reduce the amount of work required.

Traditional streetcar systems as well as newer light rail systems are used in many cities around the world because they typically can carry a larger number of people than any bus-based public transport system. They are also cleaner, quieter, more comfortable, and in many cases faster than buses. In addition, light rail has none of the negative connotations of being a system used by the "transit dependent" that can plague BRT ridership levels. The presence of rail lines demonstrates a long-term commitment by government to a particular neighborhood.

In an emergency, light rail trains are also easier to evacuate than monorail or elevated rapid rail trains.

Many modern light rail projects re-use parts of old rail networks, such as abandoned industrial rail lines. This fact gives some systems built-in right-of-way; besides the built-in right-of-way, the hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design.

A good example of both points above is the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London, which uses a sharp, steep, curve to enable it to transfer from running alongside an existing railway line to a disused railway line which crossed underneath the first line. A direct connection between these lines would not be practical for conventional rail (note that because the DLR has a completely grade-separated right of way, it can also be regarded as a metro).

Disadvantages of light rail

Like all modes of rail transport, light rail tends to be safest when operating in dedicated right-of-way with complete grade separations. However, grade separations are not always financially or physically feasible.

Monorail advocates like to point out (as a way to disparage light rail and promote monorail) that light rail trolleys are heavier per pound of cargo carried than heavy rail cars or monorail cars, because they must be designed to survive collisions with automobiles.

Furthermore, the opening of new light rail systems has sometimes been accompanied by a marked increase in car accidents involving drivers unfamiliar with the physics and geometry of light rail trolleys.Charles S. McCaleb, Rails, Roads & Runways: The 20-Year Saga of Santa Clara County's Transportation Agency, (San Jose: Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, 1994), 67. Besides recounting statistics and anecdotes, this source also reprints a San Jose Mercury News cartoon of one such accident, in which a bemused tow truck driver quips, "Dang! Rod Diridon was right! The trolley does reduce the number of vehicles on the road!"

Being a line source of noise pollution, light rail has a potential of exposing considerable populations to adverse health effects of noise. Noise mitigation design and planning strategies are available to transportation planners to minimize these effects.

Criticisms of light rail in the U.S., and responses to them

In many cases there has been considerable opposition to new light rail systems, particularly in the United States. Many of these arguments reflect the particular U.S. political conditions, including uses of government funding, considerations of development goals in urbanizing areas, and positions and power of various advocacy and lobbying groups, as well as physical issues, including the relatively low density (as compared to much of Europe and Asia) of many U.S. conurbations, and the extent and use of highway systems. Arguments by opponents are often framed in terms of "how much automobile traffic can light rail replace," above all other considerations.

Arguments are generally along three lines: first, that modern spatial arrangements are unsuited for fixed-line transit systems such as light rail; second, that light rail is too slow to compete with the automobile; and three, that light rail does not generate a sufficient return on capital investment to make its construction worthwhile. Driving Forces (1998), by American political scientist and transit opponent James Dunn, provides a good summary of these arguments.

Spatial mismatch

Light rail opponents argue that modern American metropolitan areas are far too dispersed in residential and employment locations for any mass transit facility to be able to remove a significant percentage of drivers from automobiles. In the United States, only in metropolitan New York City is transit's share of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) higher than five percent, and in most metropolitan areas, transit carries less than one percent of travel. These percentages are considerably higher for suburb-to-central business district (CBD) commutes, but these trips have dramatically declined as a percentage of VMT since the 1970s. United States use of light rail is however extremely low. The busiest United States light rail system achieves 25 million passenger boardings per year^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}, only half that of the London Docklands Light Rail system.

While the spatial mismatch argument is largely correct for the Midwest (except Chicagoland), the South, and Southwest, it is increasingly not the case in places such as Los Angeles and San Diego. As West Coast cities, in particular, run into their coastal mountain ranges, many have developed polycentric spatial arrangements with a relatively small number of nodes. For most of its history, transit has best served commuters from suburbs to a single CBD. However, this is no longer necessarily the case; in Sacramento and San Diego, particularly, construction of light rail networks that incorporate both circumferential (suburb-to-suburb) and radial (suburb-to-CBD) lines have produced surprisingly high increases in passenger-miles (Thompson and Matoff, 2003).

Nevertheless, with such a small market share, even a doubling of transit ridership would have virtually no impact on traffic congestion. Smart growth advocates and New Urbanists acknowledge this and call for areas near proposed light rail stations to be developed as relatively high-density "transit villages," minimizing the need for automobile usage while increasing the housing stock. In many areas, NIMBYism is an obstacle to such development, but may fade if automobile congestion creates the perception of lower quality of life.

Travel time

Opponents also point to the fact that light rail has a perceived disadvantage in travel time. On average, during peak travel periods, light rail operates only slightly faster than buses and barely one-half as fast as automobiles. These averaged figures do not account for the degree of congestion, however; light rail on its own right-of-way is considerably less vulnerable to gridlock than automobiles or buses operating in mixed traffic. For example, Los Angeles' heavily-used Blue Line (the United States' busiest light rail line, with over 70,000 daily passenger boardings) is much slower than automobiles at off-peak times, but during rush hour, is very competitive with automobiles traveling along the extremely congested Long Beach Freeway (I-710) it parallels. The Harbor Freeway busway nearby is faster than either mode, due to fewer stops, but construction of its dedicated right-of-way was extremely expensive given its very low ridership. It is clear, though, that light rail only makes sense in areas that suffer from sufficient congestion to make it competitive with cars, and along routes that are too heavily-traveled for even bus rapid transit systems.

Return on Investment and Cost-Competitiveness for LRT vs. Highway

More generally, as the "face" of mass transit investment in the past two decades, light rail in the USA has been the target of arguments that mass transit investment is not a good use of public funds.

• Critics accuse light rail projects of being corruption-prone "money trains," providing wasteful quantities of public money to politically-connected construction firms. Supporters note that other forms of transit (such as highway) are no more immune to the tendency to engage in gratuitous cost overruns and outright graft, as is evidenced by The Big Dig highway project in Boston.

• While not as high as all-new subway construction, LRT still often has a high per-mile cost (especially in areas where transit agencies have to acquire right-of-way by means of eminent domain). Rail proponents respond that highway systems require considerable expenditure out of general funds on pollution control measures, as well as greater numbers of schools and other expensive infrastructure#redirect [[Template:Fact]]. Additionally, much of the cost of a highway is hidden as a result of the cost of purchasing and maintaining vehicles being assumed by private owners#redirect [[Template:Fact]].

• It has also been argued that light rail offers indirect benefits to a metropolitan areas since it is low-impact with regards to hard-to-measure quality of life variables (except noise--q.v.), whereas highway construction has historically wreaked havoc on the social capital of neighborhoods where it occurs and leads to cases of alleged cancer clusters and noise pollution in areas directly adjacent to even moderately-traveled routes#redirect [[Template:Fact]].

• US critics also point to low ridership and poor utility to the bulk of the population. LRT supporters argue that many of such criticisms are derived from studies in areas where rail is still under construction or was never completed. This ignores the so-called network effect, whereby the addition of one node to a network increases the utility of all other nodes. The experiences of Sacramento, California and Portland, Oregon have demonstrated this phenomenon to great effect: in those places, light rail became reasonably competitive with highways once a reasonable percentage of the complete network had been put in place. In these and other LRT-heavy cities, greater government sophistication regarding LRT construction has led to a "learning by doing" effect that substantially lowers per-mile construction costs.

• While it can be argued that the postmodern American city does not possess sufficient population density to support mass transit, the geographic reach of the modern public transit system is supplemented by those using cars to get to transit stations. This is strongly supported by the experience in Europe and particularly Japan where large numbers of people cycle the short distance to their station and catch the train, leaving the bicycle at the station.

• Additionally, since highways become terribly inefficient once a certain mass of cars is on the road (e.g. rush hour), it has been argued that mass transit systems such as light rail improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of existing highway infrastructure by lowering traffic congestion in much the same way as a carpool program.

However, investment in LRT systems may be stifled on account of the fact that the political atmosphere is not conducive to projects with large up-front capital expenditures. Moreover, existing arterials and freeways are considered sunk costs (despite the enormous expense of road maintenance). Because of this, political bodies are often skeptical of allocating funds to establish a new travel system, instead choosing to incrementally increase road expenditures via widening. Light rail supporters decry this ideology, pointing to the social costs of continued highway dependence, arguing that such actions are examples known in the behavioral economics literature as "improving one's self to death."

The Canadian Experience

Calgary

Despite the fact that Calgary, Alberta would appear to be a conventional car-oriented Western city with far-flung suburbs, the Calgary C-Train system is the most successful light rail system in North America, with over 52 million riders per year Hubbel and Colquhoun (2006) "Light Rail Transit in Calgary - The First 25 Years", Joint International Light Rail Conference, St. Louis, Missouri http://www.calgarytransit.com/Calgarys_LRT_1st_25Years_TRB%20_revised.pdf. This is considerably higher than any U.S. light rail system and exceeds even that of the Docklands Light Railway in London.

The Calgary system was started in 1981 as the result of deliberate decisions to avoid building either downtown freeways or a heavy rail system. At that point in time, Calgary had less than half a million people and was considered too small for rail transit, but when it first opened the C-Train carried about 40,000 passengers per day. Today, Calgary is twice as big with 1 million people, but the C-Train system is over three times as long and carries over 220,000 passengers per day.

42% of the people working downtown take the C-Train to work. Part of the reason is that Calgary's downtown core covers only 1.4 square miles and was originally built by budget-conscious city councils with narrow streets to save money. However, in the second half of the 20th century growth exceeded expectations and today Calgary is the second largest head office center in Canada with 32 million square feet of office space and 120,000 people working in the downtown core. Without the C-Train, it is estimated that it would require 16 lanes of freeway to move all the cars downtown, and when they got there, there would be no parking for them - There are less than 0.4 downtown parking places available per worker.

Despite the downtown rush, 25% of the riders during rush hour are counterflow commuters - going out of downtown during the morning and into it during the afternoon. Many of these are students going to educational institutions - who receive deep discounts because they are filling seats that otherwise would be empty, and workers doing crosstown commutes to avoid the lack of freeways.

Edmonton

By contrast with Calgary, in Edmonton, Alberta the Edmonton Transit System built much of its light rail system underground, which meant that it could not afford to lay as much track to the suburbs. In addition, Edmonton's central business district has less office space and the single line which was built did not reach areas which housed many commuters to downtown. The system is successful by North American Standards, but not nearly as successful as Calgary's - it has attracted only a sixth of the ridership. Edmonton is building new extensions at grade that will extend to the TOD Century Park.

Vancouver

In 1986, Vancouver, British Columbia built the Vancouver SkyTrain. Though sometimes called an advanced light rapid transit system, it is not really light rail because it uses a pair of live rails rather than overhead wires to supply electricity - meaning it cannot use level crossings or mix with other vehicles for fear of electrocuting someone. It is more often called an Advanced Rapid Transit system. While the system is about the same size and carries the same number of passengers (220,000 per day) as Calgary's (in a metropolitan area twice as large), the exotic technology has proved to be problematic in the long term. The fact that it is forced to be an elevated system means that it cannot run at grade outside the inner city area and raised its capital costs to nearly double that of Calgary's system, while its operating and maintenance costs are over three times as high. Recently, Vancouver has turned away from some of the advanced technology in its new trains, and is thinking of switching to light rail for its new lines.

Ottawa

At the other extreme, Ottawa, Ontario opted for elevated busways (the Ottawa Transitway) on the theory that buses were cheaper than light rail. In practice, the capital costs turned out to be nearly as high, since the cost of elevating a roadway is no cheaper than elevating a railway, and the operating costs were much higher. But, most problematic, the huge number of buses running through the urban core seriously disrupted downtown traffic and caused service delays on the transit system. In addition, the buses were not as smooth nor as comfortable as light rail vehicles, and ridership initially dropped. The number of riders has recoved to 200,000 per day, but this has excerbated the operating problems. Ottawa also tried diesel light rail (the O-Train) but the diesel trains turned out to be less popular than electric trains. Currently, Ottawa is working on switching to a light rail system, but unfortunately the busways cannot be converted to railways without shutting down the system for several years. Unlike a light rail system, which can be moved underground and/or converted to heavy rail if it gets overloaded, a bus rapid transit system that reaches capacity is at a dead end.

Costs of Light Rail Construction

Many U.S. light rail lines have total land and construction costs of less than $25 million per mile. The city of Kenosha, Wisconsin achieved new state-of-the-art rail construction with 115-pound welded rail over concrete ties (except for wood ties at grade crossings) and drain tiles, for a cost of approximately $1 million per mile. If tunnelling and elevated track are also required, aggregate costs can rise to between $40 million and $65 million per mile^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}. However, Seattle's new light rail system is projected to cost nearly $180 million per mile, involving multiple tunnels, elevated sections, and major upgrades to existing transit facilities^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}. Rights of way can be expensive and, in dense urban areas, rights-of-way for rail may cost as much as $50 million per mile ($30 million/km)^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}. A typical on-street light-rail or trolley right-of-way is 25 feet wide for two tracks, and can be converted from normal automobile traffic to exclusive rail use^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}. Grade separated rail and stations are wider^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}.

At the cheap end of the scale, the Calgary, Alberta C-Train system used most of the usual light rail techniques to keep costs low, including minimizing underground and elevated trackage, sharing transit malls with buses, leasing rights-of-way from freight railroads, and putting tracks in the medians of freeways. As a result, Calgary ranks toward the bottom of the scale with capital costs of around $24 million per mile (McKendrick et al. 2006) "Calgary's C-Train - Effective Capital Utilization", Joint International Light Rail Conference, St. Louis, Missouri http://www.calgarytransit.com/Calgary_CTrain_Effective_Capital_Utilization.pdf.

However, because Calgary's ridership is much higher than any U.S system at over 220,000 rides per weekday, its efficiency of capital is also much higher. For instance, compared to the San Diego system, one of the more cost-effective ones, Calgary's capital costs were 1/3 as high, while its current ridership is well over twice as high. Thus, Calgary's capital cost per weekday rider is only $2400, less than 1/6 as high as San Diego's. The operating costs of light rail also are very low if a system is heavily used. The whole C-Train system costs only $163.00 per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour, Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.

Variations

Trams operating on mainline railways

Around Karlsruhe, Kassel and Saarbrücken in Germany, dual-voltage light rail trains partly use mainline railroad tracks, sharing these tracks with heavy-rail trains. In the Netherlands, this concept was first applied on the RijnGouweLijn. This allows commuters to ride directly into the city centre, rather than taking a mainline train only as far as a central station and then having change to a tram. In France similar tram-trains will be realised in Paris, Mulhouse and Strasbourg; further projects exist.

Some of the issues involved in such schemes are:

• compatibility of the safety systems
• power supply of the track in relation to the power used by the vehicles (frequently different voltages, rarely third rail vs overhead wires)
• width of the vehicles in relation to the position of the platforms
• height of the platforms

There is history of what would now be considered light-rail vehicles operating on heavy-rail rapid transit tracks in the U.S., especially in the case of interurban streetcars. Notable examples are Lehigh Valley Transit trains running on the Philadelphia and Western Railroad high-speed third rail line (now the Norristown High Speed Line). Such arrangements are almost impossible now, due to the Federal Railroad Administration refusing to allow non-FRA compliant railcars (i.e. subway and light rail vehicles) to run on the same tracks at the same times as compliant railcars, which includes locomotives and standard railroad passenger and freight equipment. A notable exception is the New Jersey Transit River LINE from Camden to Trenton, which has received an exemption on the provision that light rail operations occur only during daytime hours and Conrail freight service only at night, with several hours separating one operation from the other.

Third-rail power for trams

In the French city of Bordeaux, Citadis trams are powered by a third rail in the city center, where the tracks are not always segregated from pedestrians and cars. Safety is ensured by placing the third rail (actually two closely spaced rails) in the middle of the track, and dividing it into eight-metre sections, each of which is only powered while it is completely covered by a tram. There is therefore no risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires.

This third rail technology is being investigated for use on the Gold Coast of Australia in the Gold Coast Light Rail Feasibility Study. See [the present draft report] here.

Scale Models of Light Rail Vehicles

Models of LRVs are popular in HO scale and sometimes in [[1:50 scale]]. They typically are powered and will accept plastic figures inside. Common manufacturers are Roco and Lima with many custom models being made as well.

A number of OO scale tram models, especially kits, are made in the UK.

There are some Russian tram models available in [[1:48 scale]]

| width="50%" align="" valign="" |

See also

• Bus rapid transit
• Cable car
• Conduit current collection
• General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy
• H-Bahn
• Interurban streetcar
• Kenosha, Wisconsin
• Light rail on rubber tires
• Light Rail Transit Association
• List of light-rail transit systems
• Metro
• Monorail
• People mover
• Personal rapid transit
• Public transport
• Railway electrification system
• Rubber-tyred trams
• S-Bahn
• Streetcar
• Third rail
• Tram
• Tram-train
• Transportation in New York City
• Trolleybus
• U-Bahn
• Urban rail transit

| width="50%" align="" valign="" |

External links

• [A movie] of Armour's electric trolley, circa 1897 from Library of Congress
• [List of Canadian urban rail systems]
• Table of [Light Rail Transit Agencies in the United States]
• [Commuter Rail, Light Rail & Rail Transit News]
• [Light Rail Central photos & news]
• [American Public Transit Association]
• [Federal Transit Administration (U.S.)]
• [Light Rail & Transit News] Current news concerning light rail development and issues

Links to sites advocating light rail

• [Light Rail Transit Association] (GB)
• [Light Rail Central] (US/CA)
• [Light Rail Now!] (US) A pro-light rail web site, opposing monorails, "rapid" busways, and other "gimmickry" transportation systems
• [Light Rail Netherlands] (NL) in English, Nederlands, Русский язык, Deutsch, Français, Español
• [A Common Sense Plan for a Dublin Metro]

Links to sites opposing light rail

Note: the following links are from organizations that oppose light rail out of ideological reasons.

• ['Breech of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth' highlighting alleged wastefulness and ineffectiveness of light rail projects] An argument against utilization of a light rail system in Charlotte, NC
• [LightRail POW!] - A website documenting the safety hazards of light rail
• [The Monorail Society] - A pro-monorail web site that promotes grade-separate rather than street-based transit.

|}

References

 

---

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

---

Search Titles

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

?