Transit-Focused Development and Light Rail Systems: The Lite Connection

1998 ◽  
Vol 1623 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas R. Porter
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
The Real Estate ◽  
Rail Systems ◽  
Transit Agencies ◽  
Environmental Goals ◽  
Business District ◽  
Heavy Rail

Building on a 19-region study of transit-focused development, some directions are suggested for evolving development opportunities associated with the light rail transit systems built and planned in recent decades. Transportation and land use planners continue to propound the concept of transit-focused development that can increase use of transit systems, reduce dependency on automobiles, create desirable living and working environments, and help to meet environmental goals. In their expectations of achieving a substantial amount of transit-focused development, however, planners must recognize the realities of the real estate markets, public policy trends, and the nature of rail lines themselves. Especially along the light rail lines that provide service in many regions, development opportunities will be influenced by changes in the development industry and its primary markets, increasing deference to neighborhood and community groups in decision making regarding development, and the generally lower intensity of use of suburban rail stations compared with many stations along heavy rail lines. Successful development around light rail stations, as with heavy rail systems, will require a timely confluence of market demand with supportive public policies and actions. Unlike experience with heavy rail systems, however, noncentral-business-district stations on light rail lines are more likely to attract relatively small, uncomplicated projects. Transit agencies and local governments will be required to invest more time and energy in nurturing these kinds of projects.

Light Rail in Britain and France

2005 ◽  
Vol 1930 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. William Vigrass ◽  
Andrew K. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Capital Investment ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Construction Costs ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Past ◽  
Transit Ridership ◽  
Great Divergence ◽  
Street Railways ◽  
Heavy Rail

Great Britain and France have experienced a dramatic resurgence of light rail in the past two decades. Beginning in the early 1980s, following a 30-year abandonment of street railways in favor of motorbuses, cities in both countries developed new light rail transit systems as a response to declining transit ridership, faded downtowns in need of revitalization, and the high construction costs of heavy rail and metro. Britain and France have pursued greatly different approaches to the implementation of light rail. The purpose of this paper is to point out these differences and, through the use of case studies, draw conclusions as to the efficacy of each approach. A few cities in each country were studied with secondary sources. Commonality within each country was observed with great divergence between the two countries. In Britain, the requirements for light rail are onerous: a specific act of Parliament is needed for each new start. Each system must achieve full recovery of operating and maintenance costs and contribute toward capital investment while competing against unregulated buses. That some British systems have been built and successfully attract traffic is to the credit of their proponents. France has a more uniform approach published in government circulars. All French cities of substantial size must have a “versement transportes,” a 1% to 2% tax on salaries and wages dedicated to regulated and coordinated public transport. French new starts, which have no need to attain 100% cost recovery (the versement transportes covers operating losses), have been implemented in about half the time of those in Britain.

scholarly journals Third-Rail Insulator Failure Causes and Mitigating Practices: A Comparative Study of Multiple Case Studies in the U.S.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-217
Author(s):  
Behzad Rouhanizadeh ◽  
Sharareh Kermanshachi
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Transit System ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Rail Systems ◽  
Multiple Case ◽  
Multiple Case Studies ◽  
Transit Agencies ◽  
Appropriate Practices ◽  
Best Fit

AbstractRail transit systems are one of the most important and popular types of transit systems used daily in metropolitan areas all around the world. The third rail is one of the providers of traction power in electrified rail systems, but it faces several issues, such as insulator failures. The purpose of this study is to investigate the causes of insulator failures, which have not been comprehensively studied and presented in the literature. To accomplish this objective, eight transit systems with third rails were selected to (1) investigate the characteristics of third-rail systems, (2) determine the causes of insulator failures, (3) analyze the costs associated with insulator failures, and (4) determine mitigating practices to reduce the number and cost of insulator failures. After a thorough literature review, details of eight case studies were collected from different transit agencies, and their subject matter experts were asked to complete a survey and provide input. The results revealed that a build-up of dirt was the major cause of the 17 identified causes of insulator failures; carbon dust and dirt were identified as the most present particles in third-rail systems. It was noted that transit agencies often implement multiple mitigating practices such as cleaning the insulator, performing visual inspections, and conducting regular maintenance to reduce the number and cost of insulator failures. The findings of this study will help decision-makers for transit systems make timely decisions to prevent third-rail insulator failures and adopt appropriate practices that best fit their transit system.

Rail in Multimodal Transit Systems: Concept for Improving Urban Mobility by Increasing Choices for Travel and Lifestyle

1997 ◽  
Vol 1571 (1) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Schumann
Keyword(s):  
Central Business District ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sustainable Urban Development ◽  
Transport Systems ◽  
Urban Mobility ◽  
Niche Markets ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Community Patterns ◽  
Rail Systems ◽  
Business District

Metro areas relying on automobile-based transport are increasingly congested. Some alternatives to gridlock are being implemented; others languish without political acceptance. Congestion is more than a suburban issue. Both intersuburban and radial travel woes are growing and must be addressed. Agencies should start with bus improvements, then add rail where appropriate. Experience shows that, unlike purely radial systems, transit networks with many transfer opportunities offer options to users in more travel markets and, as a result, attract more riders. In the United States, rail is often viewed as serving just the central business district (CBD) and being incapable of accommodating suburban trips. In fact, radial rail lines can provide attractive options for trips to new centers near suburban rail stations, in addition to CBD trips. Rail systems become regional connections, linked via timed transfers at transit centers with bus and paratransit feeders and circulators. Clock headways and integrated fares complete a seamless multimodal, multidestinational system serving the CBD as well as emerging regional centers. Such systems work best as part of a comprehensive program for sustainable urban development, consciously planned by committed, far-sighted political leaders who build public consensus to implement a regional vision for community patterns that encourage a rich variety of lifestyle and mobility choices. Key to effecting such transport systems are ( a) competent transit management that seeks out and serves a variety of niche markets, and ( b) coordinated transportation and land use decision making that values transit links to major destinations and compact communities.

Load quantification of the wheel–rail interface of rail vehicles for the infrastructure of light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail transit

2017 ◽  
Vol 232 (2) ◽  
pp. 596-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Lin ◽  
J Riley Edwards ◽  
Marcus S Dersch ◽  
Thomas A Roadcap ◽  
Conrad Ruppert
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
System Level ◽  
Ride Quality ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Rail Transit ◽  
Design Practices ◽  
Commuter Rail ◽  
Transit Agencies ◽  
Current Loading ◽  
Heavy Rail

The type and magnitude of loads that pass through the track superstructure have a great impact on both the design and the performance of the concrete crossties and fastening systems. To date, the majority of North American research that focus on quantifying the rail infrastructure loading conditions has been conducted on heavy-haul freight railroads. However, the results and recommendations of these studies may not be applicable to the rail transit industry due to a variety of factors. Unlike the freight railroads, which have standardized maximum gross rail loads and superstructure design practices for vehicles, the rail transit industry is home to a significant variety of vehicle and infrastructure designs. Some of the current transit infrastructure design practices, which were established decades ago, need to be updated with respect to the current loading environment, infrastructure types, and understanding of the component and system-level behavior. This study focuses on quantifying the current load environment for light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail transit infrastructure in the United States. As an initial phase of this study, researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) have conducted a literature review of different metrics, which is used to evaluate the static, dynamic, impact, and rail seat loads for the rail transit infrastructure. UIUC will compare these methods and their computed values to determine which provide the most accurate depictions of the expected loading condition given a set of operating and infrastructure characteristics. A proper load quantification of rail transit systems, gained through an improved understanding of the load path and rail seat load, will help to establish the basis for developing recommendations for a mechanistic design process for the rail transit infrastructure components. Ultimately, the results of this research will allow transit agencies to increase the effectiveness of their capital spending and transit agencies will have the potential to improve safety, ride quality, capacity, and the life cycle of the rail transit infrastructure.

scholarly journals Development of Strategies to Prevent Third Rail Insulator Failures in Transit Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-70
Author(s):  
Behzad Rouhanizadeh ◽  
Sharareh Kermanshachi
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Preventive Maintenance ◽  
Preventive Strategies ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Rail Systems ◽  
Transit Agencies ◽  
In Transit ◽  
Source Of Information

AbstractFailures of third rail insulators, which often impose problems that affect the serviceability of transit systems, rarely have been investigated. This study examines various aspects of third rail systems, identifies causes of insulator failures, and develops and categorizes preventive strategies. To accomplish the goals, the existing literature was reviewed and analyzed to identify various characteristics of third rails and insulators. Then, five transit case studies were analyzed to determine the characteristics of third rails, identify the causes of insulator failures, and evaluate the preventive strategies adopted by transit agencies. The results revealed that local environmental conditions cause degradation of insulators, with dirt build-up being the biggest contributor to failure. Performing maintenance and inspections of insulators at predetermined intervals was also shown to be very effective for preventing failure. The preventive strategies were classified into three categories: regular inspections; preventive maintenance programs; and regulation and safety, with regular inspections being the most frequently adopted. Findings of this study will serve as an appropriate source of information for practitioners who work with third rail systems and will help them adopt effective strategies.

Rail Transit in the Next Millennium: Some Global Perspectives

2000 ◽  
Vol 1704 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert S. Levinson
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Rail Transit ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Global Perspectives ◽  
Rail Systems ◽  
Per Capita

Worldwide rail transit is discussed, focusing on grade-separated metro and light rail systems. Systems are compared by continent and country, number of lines per urban area, line lengths, station spacing, rail kilometers per million persons, annual rides per capita, and riders per route kilometer. Nine countries—the United States, the former Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, France, China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Canada—account for 68 percent of all rail transit systems. Ridership per capita is generally lowest in North America and highest on systems in the former Soviet Union. Europe has the largest number of systems, the most rail kilometers per million persons, and the third highest level in annual rides per capita. Comparisons and trends suggest a need for additional rail transit in the next millennium, as urban areas throughout the world continue to grow.

Understanding Stray Current Mitigation, Testing and Maintenance on DC Powered Rail Transit Systems

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saud Memon
Keyword(s):  
Current Control ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Rail Transit ◽  
Stray Current ◽  
Soil Resistivity ◽  
Transit System ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Testing Procedures ◽  
Transit Agencies

All direct current traction power systems using rails for return of traction current have a level of current leakage. This leakage of current is dependent on both design and operating factors affecting the efficiency of the rail return path and is referred to as stray current. Stray currents have been detected since the first electric railways were placed into operation during the latter half of the nineteenth century and have serious effects on utility structures and the neighboring infrastructure at large. Stray currents can create safety hazards thereby rendering the design of stray current mitigation an important element of the overall design of a rail transit system. Like any other design/construction project, a baseline survey is an important and significant step in the data collection and fact finding process for a light rail system. Such a survey would aid in finding the soil resistivity data and the results of the stray current levels on existing buried metal utilities. Similarly defining the design criteria for stray current mitigation, monitoring, and testing for a new light rail design project is also important. Most of the design criteria for the older rail transit systems have been developed as an aftermath of the corrosion problem and/or after the design of new extension to the system. Some older transit systems still do not have a specified design or mitigation criteria for stray current, and corrosion issues are handled as they surface and are prioritized based on severity. In the absence of guidelines, it is hard to understand the reasoning behind the limiting criteria suggested in the transit agency manuals particularly when there is no record of testing or soil resistivity investigation. For these older transit systems the limiting criterion was developed based on the information from other transit services. Having applicable design criteria for stray current control and mitigation will help standardize the process for the transit and will lower the cost of mitigation. This paper has been written by a Civil Engineer with an effort to understand the source and the scientific reasoning behind the limiting values suggested by the transit agencies associated with stray current testing procedures and its control. In order to understand the limited stray current corrosion criteria and the respective testing, various transit agencies were interviewed. These interviews were supplemented by a thorough review of the respective transit agency criteria manual/guidelines (where such information was available and accessible). Critical evaluations of the testing procedures were conducted to analyze if these tests and mitigation methods were effective.

Station facilities and noise assessment: A multilevel analysis on light rail train stations

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-372
Author(s):  
Yalcin Yildirim ◽  
Diane Jones Allen
Keyword(s):  
Public Transportation ◽  
Transportation Systems ◽  
Urban Life ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Message Boards ◽  
Sound Levels ◽  
Noise Assessment ◽  
Ticket Vending Machines

Noise is one of the most frequent consequences of traffic. Public transportation systems, such as the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) authority provides various modes of transportation. Even though the availability of commuting service for the public is a boon to communities, mass transit systems are potential sources of excessive sound levels in daily urban life. This article examines the nexus between the transit station facilities of light rail train (LRT) stations and noise implications at both station and neighborhood scales by studying selected LRT stations. A multilevel linear analysis was conducted to understand the degree of train station amenities and neighborhood characteristics that affect sound levels. Using a type II sound pressure level (SPL)meter, sound measurements were obtained during the weekdays and weekends over several weeks. Upon examining the station amenities, and built environment and sociodemographic characteristics of the neighborhood, findings of this comprehensive research reveal significant implications for sound levels. Stations with ticket vending machines and informative message boards include a higher degree of significance on SPLs, while shelters, crew rooms, bike lockers, restrooms, and windshields are significantly and negatively associated with the noise levels. Additionally, neighborhoods with dense roads, higher speed limits, more neighborhood facilities, and a higher number of transit routes have an increased likelihood of noise levels. Recommendations include creating transformative policies for implementation, and approaches addressing noise for transit authorities, transportation engineers, and planners are presented. Planning and engineering aspects of comfort, aesthetics, safety, and public health, as train stations are daily use spaces for commuters and surrounding communities, should also be considered.

Light Rail Versus Guided Light Transit in Medium-Sized Cities: A Comparative Study for Ioannina, Greece

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-274
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Kepaptsoglou ◽  
Eleni Vlahogianni ◽  
Nikolaos Giannoulis ◽  
Aristeidis G. Karlaftis
Keyword(s):  
Public Transportation ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Transit Systems ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
Transportation Services ◽  
High Investment

Light rail transit systems (LRTs) are attractive options for modern communities as they offer high quality, sustainable public transportation services. However, investment costs often may make their application for medium-sized cities prohibitive, particularly if no significant social benefits are achieved. Guided light transit (GLT) has been introduced in the recent years, as a lower cost alternative to LRT, with the additional advantage of being suitable for urban environments with space limitations. In this study, a systematic comparison of LRT and GLT is offered, in the context of a mid-size city in Greece. Results indicate that high investment costs, coupled with low ridership can have a negative impact to the introduction of LRT in a medium-sized city. However, under certain conditions, GLT may be a viable alternative, while its nature and characteristics are not that different to those of LRT.

Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations

1996 ◽  
Vol 1538 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean O'Sullivan ◽  
John Morrall
Keyword(s):  
Central Business District ◽  
Design Guidelines ◽  
Walking Distance ◽  
Light Rail ◽  
Rail Transit ◽  
Light Rail Transit ◽  
Bus Stop ◽  
Business District ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The City

A quantifiable basis for developing design guidelines for pedestrian access to light-rail transit (LRT) stations is provided for planners based on observations in Calgary, Canada. Calgary's LRT system, which began operations in 1981, has been operating for long enough for walking patterns to and from its stations to become established. Interviews were conducted with 1,800 peak-hour LRT users about the origins and destinations of their LRT trips. Those who walked to or from a station were asked to point out on a map their approximate origins or destinations. The distances were then measured off the maps. Walking distance guidelines were developed for central business district (CBD), transfer and local stations. Catchment area maps were produced, and the relationship between reported walking time and measured walking distance was calculated. Also compared are the walking distances at LRT stations and the walking distances at bus stops. The research strongly indicates that people walk farther to reach an LRT station than a bus stop. Using bus walking standards would result in an underestimate of LRT walking distances by about half. For the city of Calgary the average walking distance to suburban stations is 649 m with a 75th-percentile distance of 840 m. At CBD stations the average walking distance is 326 m and the 75th-percentile distance is 419 m.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document