>lightrail
no
run proper trainss on it
6 carriage Electric Multiple Unit train set can carry 1,000 people
make it a metro
or commuter
dumbasses

>>318431
You're this board's own, personal Abatap, aren't you?

>>318432
He's completely right though.

>>318442
Only in the context of idiotic US rail regulators, which make light rail an oxymoron. Elsewhere in the world light rail vehicles are actually light, indistinguishable from streetcars: the same vehicles.

>>318444
and as such should be used as streetcars
trying to use them as a substitute for trains will not work

>>318444
You do realize light refers to the capacity of the network not the weight of the vehicle right?

http://www.buildexpo.org/about/faq/

>Phase 1 of the Expo Line, from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, was approved in 2005 and broke ground the following year. Service on Phase 1 is expected to begin in 2011, with service to the Venice/Robertson station in 2012.

Why does the sign say "Arrives 2010" if service won't begin until this year?

>>318423
Why not just use a car? Nice aircon, no smelly people, no waiting for delayed trains, always a seat, most likely cheaper,....

>>318449
that would be nice
except thats not they get used
they get used as a cheapass substitute for trains

>>318446
Streetcars *are* trains. Just ones that are *capable* of being used off dedicated right of way. More flexible. Just as good for passengers.

The only thing going for conventional train construction is high velocity, currently roughly over 100km/h (60mph) There is zero need for higher velocities than that in urban commuter transport due to stop spacing. You can accelerate only so quickly without nauseating and injuring your passengers.

Absolutely nothing technical stops you from using streetcars as cars of an arbitrarily long train when the street-legal aspect is not required. It's all legislation and misconceptions.

As it is, it makes no sense to invest in a completely new system that excludes operation with street-capable rolling stock. Only extensions to existing such systems -- started when street-capable rolling stock simply was not up to snuff -- are sensible. Today the performance and quality are certainly there for low-floor, highly articulated vehicles.

>>318544
the only similarity is they run on rails and are electric
they operate different
run in a different environment
have vastly different capacity
trying to use the streetcar to substitute for a metro or commuter train isn't going to work

>>318544
> it makes no sense to invest in a completely new system that excludes operation with street-capable rolling stock

welcome to the red line...

>>318544
They complement each other
Streetcar on the road in urban area/downtown/whatever, stop every 500m-1km-more. 50-100 people. Its about getting around the place.

Commuter train to and through suburbia, stops every couple km, 1 or more lines radiating out from a city centre terminal hub and spoke style
Metro train, subway or elevated in the city, stops where best situated, 1 or more line
Metro has high frequency all day long, Commuter has high frequency for the morning and evening peaks and less so rest of the day, EMU train sets capable of 1,000 or more people

>>318423

1) Expo line is still in testing, hasn't even opened yet.
2) Anyone who makes the claim that building transit lines will improve traffic is an idiot.

>>318553

>Implying that light a light rail line would be feasible on Wilshire to the westside