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.
@@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'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.
2 роки тому+14
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.
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.
@@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.)
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.
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.
@@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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
This in my opinion is Reece’s best video. This was the video that really got me into this channel. Utilitarian argument that transit needs to be competing with driving and needs to be designed in a way to do it optimally. That is now my mindset when thinking about transit. Funny this video was talking about light metro. I think this video is a perfect complement to Reece’s video on the right transit mode matters.
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.
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 :)
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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..
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.
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)
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)
Another example of a light automated metro system is the Nürnberg U-Bahn in Germany. They are really pioneers when it comes to light automated metros. Because they are using this system without the need for platform screen doors, just like the Skytrain in Vancouver. A reason why is that there is a system, developed by Siemens and also implemented on the Budapest Metro line 4 (which is more a heavier metro compared to Nürnberg), which uses sensors near the tracks that detects unwanted objects, which can stop the trains and is also very useful for passenger safety, so that the life can be easily saved if it's fallen on the tracks (this system could also be useful in Bucharest, where there were cases of killings by someone pushing another one on the tracks which ended deadly).
This really explains it well. I can see why because of the lower operating cost and the medium capacity trains that it conserve lower density areas as well as high density areas just by increasing frequency when more capacity is needed and not having the expense and complications of humans involved it’s simply a matter of pushing buttons at a controlled facility to add or remove trains without consideration of cost, just supplying good service. And since the cost of high frequency it’s not much different than the cost of low frequency the efficiency allows higher frequency and therefore attracts more riders so that it say self for filling success strategy!
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 of my city's BRTs has a dedicated lane with priority traffic lights. I find it's almost as fast as the LRT, adding the BRT line also improved the speed of other bus routes that used the same corridor as they could use the dedicated lane and priority lights as well. Once past the "main street" the buses have their own separate road that zooms to the next neighborhood's "main street" that's the only time it slows down as it's a historic district with narrow roads and lots of pedestrian traffic. Then it's downtown. In less time than it would have taken me to either take a bus to the LRT, or drive downtown. It's a good option in neighborhoods with old town main streets where adding a train would be extremely difficult
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).
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
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.
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.
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
I never comment but will today. I am from NYC and our airtrain is by far one of my favorite modes of transportation, second only to the gondola tram (which sadly is only 1 stop and is not automated - dont ask why). Automation is the key to the future.
One example of a light metro that is upgraded to mainline is the Ma On Shan Line in Hong Kong. The Line started as a light metro using short versions of mainline trains(4-car long arrangements of the IKK-stock) and was then upgraded, extended and merged with the West Rail Line running 7/8 car arrangements of almost the same rolling stock. These trains can do ATO and is capable of high frequencies. Though thats where the downfall began. During the merger, the pandemic began. Service was cut back to almost 10 minutes of headway, and people complained about the long headways. Services couldn't be easily increased because of the extremely long line that Tsuen Ma Line has now become, 56km with 27 stations. As a result of the combination of the long lines and track limitations of train depots and stations, the services cannot be easily ramped up for individual sections that see more passengers. Even now that we are halfway out of the pandemic, services have still sucked at non-peak hours. Really hope that more frequent service will come later in the year.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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
And quite a few of our rail corridors have been semi-retained (When they need them the buildings in them will be removed) (Ipswich->Ripley->Springfield corridor)
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.
The whole thing about modern day elevated rail is why I think New York should consider extending the N from Astoria to LGA on an elevated line and extending the IRT down Utica and potentially even Nostrand on the same. Some problems with automated light metros tie the operator to a specific builder like, say, the SkyTrain and all those French VAL systems. Taipei’s Brown Line was tied to the VAL 256 and then had to make a custom order from Bombardier when they wanted to extend the line. Once the VALs come up for full replacement they will need yet another custom order. DLR is probably the best light metro because they aren’t tied to any specific manufacturer’s proprietary system. The Canada Line was a very important step in adding flexibility to future procurement for TransLink.
I think that the randstadrail in the region The Hague - Rotterdam is a really good example of combining metro and lightrail. The trams that are used are build with the same maximum speed as the metro trains. And there are a few city’s in Europe were you have semi metro. That are trams driving on a (partly) metro like system. That’s also the reason that I think you should look to one specific transport mode. When you get the chance look how you can combine transport modes like an tram-train combination or an tram-metro combination. Sure sometimes it means a different platform height but you can make a small ramp between the two heights so you don’t lose accessibility. The only thing you should really look at is the difference in speed. And how you can make sure that isn’t an problem anymore.
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.
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.
A medium-capacity system (MCS), also known as light rapid transit or light metro, is a rail transport system with a capacity greater than light rail, but less than typical heavy-rail rapid transit. /Wikipedia
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).
They're super versatile. They fill basically all the roles in addition to the ones that have been neglected, but light metros can do both high capacity (Paris Line 1) and regional (Montreal REM) services.
I wouldn't call Paris line 1 light metro, but you have a point. Automated metros are very flexible. There is a huge capacity gap between Lausanne M2 and Paris line 14 for instance, and yet they share the same rolling stock and technology. Light rail doesn't have the same ability to evolve because of driving costs.
from the UK Automated is a funny word because tfl runs most services as one person opration, with the "train operator" on the victora line having no more to do than the "train captain" on the DLR (for the whole history of the DLR, the DLR may have "operators" now I'm not sure), the cut and cover has train drives [wich scares the crap out of me when I rember that it has 6 at grade junctions with 150 second head ways all day (and many more lighter juctions all at grade)]
I'm curious as to how we could draw a line between metro and light metro. London's Waterloo and City line trains have 67m trains, and some trains on the New York subway's B division are about 73m long (I'd assume all the stations are built for bigger trains though?), which isn't too different from the HART trains (78m), Expo/Milennium SkyTrain trains (up to 68m), or Singapore's Thomson East Coast line trains (93m). Maybe the distinction isn't really that important though. After all, the size of both light metro and metro trains varies, and we could feasibly just see these as different only in scale rather than type.
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...
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.
Great video. Using high platforms on a light rail route could help future conversion to automated fully segregated operations. Integrating some tech from the autonomous road vehicle sector could also be introduced to allow some non fully segregated sections, sparingly perhaps at extremities where frequency drops off, definitely not anywhere on the busiest main trunks however, as any kind of at grade interaction with general traffic and pedestrians introduces performance risk even if safety can be fully ensured. The smaller London Underground deep tube trains might be thought of as light metro and some are partially automated today with the same CBTC system (Seltrac) used on the DLR. Each train retains an operator at the front, however, who supervises door closing and presses the go button. That's likely to continue for the foreseeable for safety due to the rather limited narrow platform capacities at many of the historic central stations, some of which also have horrible horizontal stepping gaps due to curvature.
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.
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)
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.
Very interesting video, as an occasional rider of the Seattle Link light-rail it makes me sad that it could be so much better. Also safety has been an ongoing issue with the street non-separated portion. Have you considered doing a retrospective on the Seattle Monorail Initiative from the 90s? I know monorail is now a “Gadgetbon” but we could have had mass transit almost 20 years earlier than we did.
Thanks for sharing your great video. Nice to see you having some good facial hair. Nice to see your background is getting better than it was. Have you ever thought about doing a top ten worse transit in the world?? Not sure if you have done a video on the USA modern street car and could they be better than they are??
Second thought: Could light metro be designed in such a way for US cities where there are planned areas for stations to be added in to a built line in the future? So that a system in a low-density city could be built to focus on covering large distances quickly, but if and when development happens more stations can be build to offer more extensive coverage.
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 would so love to see Portland evolve toward a light metro system. Here's hoping the downtown tunnel project goes through so we can lengthen trains and improve reliability.
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!
The DMV's WMTA could greatly benefit from automated light rail while expand it's reach. Hell, we even need a "Purple Line" to connect VA to MD while circumventing DC proper!
Being in Baltimore with one heavy rail metro line, one light rail line, and one regional rail line, with limited or no connectivity between them is just pure pain
Automated light metros seem like a really good way to get a city "hooked" on transit. Having a well implemented light metro system reach capacity is a really good way of producing political will from everyday people to expand a transit network. The best way to make pro-transit users from everyday people is to get people using transit. And getting people to be politically engaged with the idea that transit can re-shape a city and make it a better place to live is hard, getting someone to be politically engaged because the light-metro they take to work is crowded and something should be done about it to relieve that is much easier.
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.
A lot of light metros will be built in India🇮🇳 in smaller cities , even in larger cities like Delhi, light metro is planned for areas where demand is not enough for conventional metro . More than 50 tier 2 and 3 cities have been identified .
Rumor has it the MTA in New York might be considering a light rail option for their highly anticipated Interborough Express project. Do you think a light metro (similar to Skytrain) could work? Some of the reasons behind the possible decision to use Light Rail instead of heavy metro or commuter rail services include the narrow tunnels that presently exists in Queens which would necessitate obtaining smaller MBTA Blue Line or PATH train style rolling stock.
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.
3:18 is so much truth. Slow, infrequent, low quality transit -- and then we can complain about how bad the public transit is! :/ Do it right or don't do it at all.
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 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'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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.).
You’re putting out videos at an impressive pace mate
Thanks Morgan! Good to be back to my regular schedule!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
This in my opinion is Reece’s best video.
This was the video that really got me into this channel.
Utilitarian argument that transit needs to be competing with driving and needs to be designed in a way to do it optimally. That is now my mindset when thinking about transit.
Funny this video was talking about light metro. I think this video is a perfect complement to Reece’s video on the right transit mode matters.
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS ONE!! TURN IT UP!
Haha happy you're excited! I am too! Automated Metro FTW!
"... 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.
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 :)
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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’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.
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..
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.
I love the new additions to the wall art, they’re great!
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
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)
Another example of a light automated metro system is the Nürnberg U-Bahn in Germany. They are really pioneers when it comes to light automated metros. Because they are using this system without the need for platform screen doors, just like the Skytrain in Vancouver. A reason why is that there is a system, developed by Siemens and also implemented on the Budapest Metro line 4 (which is more a heavier metro compared to Nürnberg), which uses sensors near the tracks that detects unwanted objects, which can stop the trains and is also very useful for passenger safety, so that the life can be easily saved if it's fallen on the tracks (this system could also be useful in Bucharest, where there were cases of killings by someone pushing another one on the tracks which ended deadly).
This really explains it well. I can see why because of the lower operating cost and the medium capacity trains that it conserve lower density areas as well as high density areas just by increasing frequency when more capacity is needed and not having the expense and complications of humans involved it’s simply a matter of pushing buttons at a controlled facility to add or remove trains without consideration of cost, just supplying good service. And since the cost of high frequency it’s not much different than the cost of low frequency the efficiency allows higher frequency and therefore attracts more riders so that it say self for filling success strategy!
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.
You should make a video about LRT in Jakarta. Its fully automated light metro.
One of my city's BRTs has a dedicated lane with priority traffic lights. I find it's almost as fast as the LRT, adding the BRT line also improved the speed of other bus routes that used the same corridor as they could use the dedicated lane and priority lights as well. Once past the "main street" the buses have their own separate road that zooms to the next neighborhood's "main street" that's the only time it slows down as it's a historic district with narrow roads and lots of pedestrian traffic. Then it's downtown. In less time than it would have taken me to either take a bus to the LRT, or drive downtown. It's a good option in neighborhoods with old town main streets where adding a train would be extremely difficult
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).
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
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.
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.
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
I never comment but will today. I am from NYC and our airtrain is by far one of my favorite modes of transportation, second only to the gondola tram (which sadly is only 1 stop and is not automated - dont ask why). Automation is the key to the future.
One example of a light metro that is upgraded to mainline is the Ma On Shan Line in Hong Kong. The Line started as a light metro using short versions of mainline trains(4-car long arrangements of the IKK-stock) and was then upgraded, extended and merged with the West Rail Line running 7/8 car arrangements of almost the same rolling stock. These trains can do ATO and is capable of high frequencies.
Though thats where the downfall began.
During the merger, the pandemic began. Service was cut back to almost 10 minutes of headway, and people complained about the long headways. Services couldn't be easily increased because of the extremely long line that Tsuen Ma Line has now become, 56km with 27 stations. As a result of the combination of the long lines and track limitations of train depots and stations, the services cannot be easily ramped up for individual sections that see more passengers. Even now that we are halfway out of the pandemic, services have still sucked at non-peak hours. Really hope that more frequent service will come later in the year.
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
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.
I would watch a video on how to design a rail system for sure
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’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.
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.
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
And quite a few of our rail corridors have been semi-retained (When they need them the buildings in them will be removed) (Ipswich->Ripley->Springfield corridor)
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.
this might be my favourite of your videos so far
The whole thing about modern day elevated rail is why I think New York should consider extending the N from Astoria to LGA on an elevated line and extending the IRT down Utica and potentially even Nostrand on the same.
Some problems with automated light metros tie the operator to a specific builder like, say, the SkyTrain and all those French VAL systems. Taipei’s Brown Line was tied to the VAL 256 and then had to make a custom order from Bombardier when they wanted to extend the line. Once the VALs come up for full replacement they will need yet another custom order. DLR is probably the best light metro because they aren’t tied to any specific manufacturer’s proprietary system. The Canada Line was a very important step in adding flexibility to future procurement for TransLink.
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
I think that the randstadrail in the region The Hague - Rotterdam is a really good example of combining metro and lightrail. The trams that are used are build with the same maximum speed as the metro trains. And there are a few city’s in Europe were you have semi metro. That are trams driving on a (partly) metro like system. That’s also the reason that I think you should look to one specific transport mode. When you get the chance look how you can combine transport modes like an tram-train combination or an tram-metro combination. Sure sometimes it means a different platform height but you can make a small ramp between the two heights so you don’t lose accessibility. The only thing you should really look at is the difference in speed. And how you can make sure that isn’t an problem anymore.
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.
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!
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.
A medium-capacity system (MCS), also known as light rapid transit or light metro, is a rail transport system with a capacity greater than light rail, but less than typical heavy-rail rapid transit.
/Wikipedia
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).
The lighting in this video is so good!
They're super versatile. They fill basically all the roles in addition to the ones that have been neglected, but light metros can do both high capacity (Paris Line 1) and regional (Montreal REM) services.
I wouldn't call Paris line 1 light metro, but you have a point. Automated metros are very flexible. There is a huge capacity gap between Lausanne M2 and Paris line 14 for instance, and yet they share the same rolling stock and technology. Light rail doesn't have the same ability to evolve because of driving costs.
from the UK Automated is a funny word because tfl runs most services as one person opration, with the "train operator" on the victora line having no more to do than the "train captain" on the DLR (for the whole history of the DLR, the DLR may have "operators" now I'm not sure), the cut and cover has train drives
[wich scares the crap out of me when I rember that it has 6 at grade junctions with 150 second head ways all day (and many more lighter juctions all at grade)]
I'm curious as to how we could draw a line between metro and light metro. London's Waterloo and City line trains have 67m trains, and some trains on the New York subway's B division are about 73m long (I'd assume all the stations are built for bigger trains though?), which isn't too different from the HART trains (78m), Expo/Milennium SkyTrain trains (up to 68m), or Singapore's Thomson East Coast line trains (93m). Maybe the distinction isn't really that important though. After all, the size of both light metro and metro trains varies, and we could feasibly just see these as different only in scale rather than type.
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...
Also makes them less effected by strikes, as is evident in London(Though we do have strange high capacity light rail).
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.
I want to agree with all this... but I suspect you are underestimating how hard it is to sell elevated railway to the punters.
Great video. Using high platforms on a light rail route could help future conversion to automated fully segregated operations. Integrating some tech from the autonomous road vehicle sector could also be introduced to allow some non fully segregated sections, sparingly perhaps at extremities where frequency drops off, definitely not anywhere on the busiest main trunks however, as any kind of at grade interaction with general traffic and pedestrians introduces performance risk even if safety can be fully ensured.
The smaller London Underground deep tube trains might be thought of as light metro and some are partially automated today with the same CBTC system (Seltrac) used on the DLR. Each train retains an operator at the front, however, who supervises door closing and presses the go button. That's likely to continue for the foreseeable for safety due to the rather limited narrow platform capacities at many of the historic central stations, some of which also have horrible horizontal stepping gaps due to curvature.
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.
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)
Vienna is curantly in the process of U5. Or first fully automated and driverless metro line
Very exciting stuff, the first of many I hope!
@@RMTransit Dout it. Still er are abut to come out of a 20 year long nuber gap betwen lines
U1 U2 U3 U4 U6. So we fianly habe U5
The Copenhagen metro is pretty good, as I didn’t know what it looked like going down the tracks from the front!
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.
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 have rode on the Guangzhou APM Line, Vancouver Canada Line, Vancouver Expo as automated metro trains
Very interesting video, as an occasional rider of the Seattle Link light-rail it makes me sad that it could be so much better. Also safety has been an ongoing issue with the street non-separated portion. Have you considered doing a retrospective on the Seattle Monorail Initiative from the 90s? I know monorail is now a “Gadgetbon” but we could have had mass transit almost 20 years earlier than we did.
Forward thrust and the 1915 subway proposals are even more sad... MARTA was almost our system
Thanks for sharing your great video. Nice to see you having some good facial hair. Nice to see your background is getting better than it was.
Have you ever thought about doing a top ten worse transit in the world?? Not sure if you have done a video on the USA modern street car and could they be better than they are??
Reese is the transit GOAT
Wow I'm touched! 🐐
New lighting? Looks good! Automated light metro is a new term for me, and exactly the sort of thing more suburban areas could use.
But expensive to build.
Second thought: Could light metro be designed in such a way for US cities where there are planned areas for stations to be added in to a built line in the future? So that a system in a low-density city could be built to focus on covering large distances quickly, but if and when development happens more stations can be build to offer more extensive coverage.
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 would so love to see Portland evolve toward a light metro system. Here's hoping the downtown tunnel project goes through so we can lengthen trains and improve reliability.
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!
The DMV's WMTA could greatly benefit from automated light rail while expand it's reach. Hell, we even need a "Purple Line" to connect VA to MD while circumventing DC proper!
Buffalo's NY NFTA Metro light rail is something you should cover in the future Reece
Being in Baltimore with one heavy rail metro line, one light rail line, and one regional rail line, with limited or no connectivity between them is just pure pain
Automated light metros seem like a really good way to get a city "hooked" on transit. Having a well implemented light metro system reach capacity is a really good way of producing political will from everyday people to expand a transit network. The best way to make pro-transit users from everyday people is to get people using transit. And getting people to be politically engaged with the idea that transit can re-shape a city and make it a better place to live is hard, getting someone to be politically engaged because the light-metro they take to work is crowded and something should be done about it to relieve that is much easier.
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.
A good follow-uo video would be automated heavy rail and major subway systems
A lot of light metros will be built in India🇮🇳 in smaller cities , even in larger cities like Delhi, light metro is planned for areas where demand is not enough for conventional metro . More than 50 tier 2 and 3 cities have been identified .
Rumor has it the MTA in New York might be considering a light rail option for their highly anticipated Interborough Express project. Do you think a light metro (similar to Skytrain) could work?
Some of the reasons behind the possible decision to use Light Rail instead of heavy metro or commuter rail services include the narrow tunnels that presently exists in Queens which would necessitate obtaining smaller MBTA Blue Line or PATH train style rolling stock.
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.
3:18 is so much truth. Slow, infrequent, low quality transit -- and then we can complain about how bad the public transit is! :/ Do it right or don't do it at all.
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?