Light rail

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

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

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

The term light rail is derived from the British English term light railway long used to distinguish railway operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulation using lighter equipment at lower speeds from mainline railways. The term was adopted in the 1970s, particularly in the United States, as a conscious break from the "obsolescent" image of streetcars. It is sometimes used largely for political reasons; in Toronto, Canada the city Transit Commission had to rename a recent project to build a dedicated right of way for one of its streetcar lines as a "new, modern LRT" in order to obtain the support of local elected officials, and then change it back to a "normal, familiar streetcar" to be accepted by the area's residents (the actual project was the same the entire time). Very few modern light rail systems actually qualify as light railways in the original meaning of the term, referring instead to tramways.

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

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

Defining light rail

The American Public Transportation Authority (APTA) in its Glossary of Transit Terminology defines light rail as: "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars."

This distinguishes light rail from traditional "heavy rail" systems by the passenger loads which it can carry, not by the weight of the vehicles which carry them (which may actually be heavier than "heavy rail" cars) or the weight of the track (which is more or less the same). Light rail is appropriate where the level of commuters is light - unlike the New York Subway and London Underground.

Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway are considered to be "heavy rail". People movers and personal rapid transit are even "lighter," at least in terms of capacity. Monorails are a separate technology, which has been more successful in a theme park environment than in a commuter transit role.

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

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

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

Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City and DLR in London and Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia have dispensed with the need for a driver.

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

History

From the mid-19th century onwards, horse-drawn trams (or horsecars) were used in cities around the world. In the late 1880s electrically-powered street railways became technically feasible following the invention of a trolley system of collecting current by American inventor Frank J. Sprague who installed the first successful system at Richmond, Virginia. They became popular because roads were then poorly-surfaced, and before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the advent of motor-buses, they were the only practical means of public transport around cities. Michael Taplin (1998) "The History of Tramways and Evolution of Light Rail", Light Rail Transit Association http://www.lrta.org/mrthistory.html

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

In North America, many of these original light-rail systems were decommissioned in the 1950s and onward as the popularity of the automobile increased. Britain abandoned its last light rail system except Blackpool by 1962. Although some traditional trolley or tram systems still exist to this day, the term "light rail" has come to mean a different type of rail system. Modern light rail technology has primarily German origins, since an attempt by Boeing Vertol to introduce a new American light rail vehicle was a technical failure. After World War II, the Germans retained their streetcar networks and evolved them into model light rail systems (stadtbahnen). Except for Hamburg, all large and most medium-sized German cities maintain light rail networks. Glen D. Bottoms, Federal Transit Administration (2000) "Continuing Developments in Light Rail Transit in Western Europe", Light Rail Transit Association http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/15_01_Bottoms.pdf

The renaisance of light rail in North American began in 1978 when the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta adopted the German Siemens-Duewag U2 system, followed three years later by Calgary, Alberta and San Diego, California. These modern light-rail systems are more like subway or metro systems that operate at street level. They include modern, multi-car trains that can only be accessed at stations that are spaced anywhere from a couple blocks to a mile or more apart. Some of these systems operate within roadways alongside automobile traffic, and others operate on their own separate right-of-way. Britain began replacing its run-down local railways with light rail in the 1980's, starting with Tyneside and followed by the Docklands Light Railway in London. The trend to light rail in the United Kingdom was firmly established with the success of the Manchester Metrolink system in 1992.

The rail gauge has had considerable variations, with narrow gauge common in many earlier systems. However, the overwhelming advantage of standard gauge is that standard railway vehicles and maintenance equipment can be used on it, rather than expensive custom-build machinery. As of August 2006, standard gauge is dominant.

Advantages of light rail

Light rail systems are generally cheaper to build than heavy rail, since the infrastructure is relatively insubstantial, and tunnels used in most metro systems are generally not required. Moreover, the ability to handle sharp curves and steep gradients can reduce the construction work.

Compared with buses, light rail systems have higher capacity, are cleaner, quieter, more comfortable, and in many cases faster. Light rail does not have the negative connotations of being a system used by the "transit dependent" that can plague BRT. The presence of rail lines demonstrates a long-term commitment by government to a particular neighborhood.

In an emergency, light rail trains are easier to evacuate than monorail or elevated rapid rail trains which may require ladders or cranes to evacuate passengers from a disabled train.

Many modern light rail projects gain rights-of-way by re-using parts of old rail networks (such as abandoned industrial rail lines), sharing freight railways, or using the medians of freeways. For example, the Docklands Light Railway uses a sharp, steep curve to enable it to run alongside an existing railway line and then transfer to a previously disused railway line which crosses underneath. A direct connection between these lines would not be practical for conventional rail.

The hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design.

Disadvantages of light rail

Light rail tends to be safest when operating in dedicated rights-of-way with complete grade separations. However, the low volumes light rail is suited for may not warrant the extra cost of grade separations.

Light rail trolleys are heavier per pound of cargo carried than heavy rail and monorail cars, because they are designed to survive collisions with automobiles. On the other hand, light rail vehicles tend to be more reliable and have longer service lives than the typical monorail vehicle, and the generally lower capital cost of construction usually offsets any weight disadvantage.

Furthermore, the opening of new light rail systems has sometimes been accompanied by a marked increase in car accidents involving drivers unfamiliar with the physics and geometry of light rail vehicles.Charles S. McCaleb, Rails, Roads & Runways: The 20-Year Saga of Santa Clara County's Transportation Agency, (San Jose: Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, 1994), 67. Besides recounting statistics and anecdotes, this source also reprints a San Jose Mercury News cartoon of one such accident, in which a bemused tow truck driver quips, "Dang! Rod Diridon was right! The trolley does reduce the number of vehicles on the road!" Though such increases may be temporary, long-term conflicts between motorists and light rail operations can be alleviated by segregating their respective rights-of-way and installing appropriate signage and warning systems.

Being a potential source of noise pollution, light rail can expose neighboring populations to adverse health effects of noise. However light rail vehicles use quiet electric motors and techniques such as rubber inserts in the wheels to reduce running noise, and transportation planners use noise mitigation strategies to minimize these effects.

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

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

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

Spatial mismatch

The dispersal of residences and employment in modern American metropolitan areas prevents mass transit displacing a significant percentage of automobiles. In the United States, only in metropolitan New York City is transit's share of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) higher than five percent, and in most metropolitan areas, transit carries less than one percent of travel. These percentages are considerably higher for suburb-to-central business district (CBD) commutes, but these trips have dramatically declined as a percentage of VMT since the 1970s. United States use of light rail is however low by European standards. According to the American Public Transportation Authority, of the 20-odd light rail systems in the United States only five (Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Portland, OR), achieve more than 25 million passenger boardings per year, and only Boston exceeds the 50+ million boardings per year of the London Docklands Light Rail system.

North American Light Rail Ridership 2005

Boardings	Average Weekday	Annual Total
(1,000s)	(millions)
Toronto	322.4	88.6
Calgary	220.0	52.6
Boston	204.7	70.6
San Francisco	136.8	43.4
Los Angeles	123.3	39.7
Portland	96.2	32.1
San Diego	95.8	28.8
Philadelphia	68.6	18.8
Dallas	61.9	17.6
Sacramento	50.6	13.8

Sources: American Public Transportation Authority, Canadian Urban Transit Association. (The annual data for Boston and San Diego is for 2004 because of reporting delays.)While the spatial mismatch argument is largely correct for the Midwest (except Chicagoland), the South, and Southwest, it never was relevant to San Francisco, the nation's second-densest city after New York, and is increasingly not the case in places such as Los Angeles and San Diego. As West Coast cities, in particular, run into their coastal mountain ranges, many have developed polycentric spatial arrangements with a relatively small number of nodes. For most of its history, transit has best served commuters from suburbs to a single CBD. However, this is no longer necessarily the case; in Sacramento and San Diego, particularly, construction of light rail networks that incorporate both circumferential (suburb-to-suburb) and radial (suburb-to-CBD) lines have produced surprisingly high increases in passenger-miles (Thompson and Matoff, 2003).

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

Travel time

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

Return on investment and cost-competitiveness for LRT vs. highway

More generally, as the "face" of mass transit investment in the past two decades, light rail in the USA has been the target of arguments that mass transit investment is not a good use of public funds.
*Light rail projects can be corruption-prone "money trains," providing wasteful quantities of public money to politically-connected construction firms, though this criticism also applies to highway projects such as the Big Dig highway project in Boston
*LRT often has a high per-mile cost (especially if rights-of-way need to be purchased). In comparison, rights-of-way costs of highway are hidden, as is the cost of purchasing and maintaining vehicles by private owners.
*Light rail offers mostly hard-to-measure indirect benefits to a metropolitan areas since it is low-impact with regards to environmental health variables, whereas highway construction has affected community cohesion in neighborhoods where it occurs and lead to increased air pollution and roadway noise in areas directly adjacent to heavily-traveled routes, externalities which are not considered by traditional financial analyses.
*Drawbacks of low ridership and poor utility to the bulk of the population diminish with the network effect: the addition of one node to a network increases the utility of other nodes. The experiences of Sacramento, California and Portland, Oregon have demonstrated this phenomenon to great effect: in those places, light rail became more competitive with highways as more of the network was put in place. To quote Calgary Transit: "Since the inception of LRT service, each new LRT line or LRT extension has produced a 15 to 20 percent increase in corridor ridership, resulting from the diversion of previous auto drivers to transit." In many cities, per mile construction costs have fallen as experience has increased.
*The geographic reach of the modern public transit system is supplemented by those using cars or bicycles to get to transit stations, reducing the population density required for a viable system. This can be seen particularly in Europe and Japan.
*Mass transit systems such as light rail improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of existing highways by lowering traffic congestion, particularly during the rush hour.

Existing arterials and freeways are considered sunk costs (despite the enormous expense of road maintenance). Because of this, political bodies are often skeptical of allocating funds to establish a new travel system, instead choosing to incrementally increase road expenditures via widening despite the social costs of continued highway dependence.

The Canadian experience

Calgary

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

The Calgary system was started in 1981, the result of decisions to avoid building either downtown freeways or a heavy rail system. At that time, Calgary had less than half a million people and was considered too small for rail transit, but when it first opened the C-Train carried about 40,000 passengers per day. By 2006, Calgary was twice as big with 1 million people, but the C-Train system is over three times as long and carries over 220,000 passengers per day.

42% of the people working downtown take the C-Train to work. Part of the reason is that Calgary's downtown core covers only 1.4 square miles and was originally built by budget-conscious city councils with narrow streets to save money. However, in the second half of the 20^th century growth exceeded expectations and as of 2006, Calgary was the second largest head office center in Canada with 32 million square feet of office space and 120,000 people working in the downtown core. The C-Train carries the equivalent number of people to 16 lanes of freeway, without the parking issues - there are fewer than 0.4 downtown parking places available per worker.

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

Edmonton

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

Vancouver

In 1986, Vancouver, British Columbia built the Expo Line of the Vancouver SkyTrain. Though sometimes called an automated light rapid transit system, it is not really light rail because it uses a pair of live rails rather than overhead wires to supply electricity. It is more often called an Advanced Rapid Transit system. The system, including the newer Millennium Line extension, carries about 66 million passengers annually. Vancouver's two new lines, Canada Line and Evergreen Line, are planned to be grade-separated automated light transit and at-grade light rail, respectively.

Ottawa

In the 1970s and 1980s Ottawa, Ontario opted for mostly grade-separated busways (the Ottawa Transitway) on the theory that buses were cheaper than light rail. In practice, the capital costs turned out to be nearly as high, since the cost of building an elevated or lowered roadway is no cheaper than for a railway. However, less exclusive right-of-way is needed for the system to be operational, thus lowering the total system capital costs. The lack of a subway or elevated transitway in the downtown means that travel is relatively slow through the downtown core. However, this problem has been reduced through the use of double bus lanes. Also, the greater frequency of stops in the urban core limits the potential benefits of grade-segregated right of way. The total number of riders using the transitway has been reported as 200,000 per day.

In 2001, Ottawa opened a diesel light rail pilot project, (the O-Train), which was relatively inexpensive to construct, due to its route along a neglected freight-rail right of way. O-Trainhas had some success in attracting new ridership to the system (a few thousand more riders), due to its connnection of a south end big box shopping mall (South Keys), through Carleton University to the east-west busway (Ottawa Transitway) near the downtown core of the city.

Ottawa has produced plans to expand both the Transitway and to open additional rail routes. The intention of the light rail project is to add to the system, not to replace the existing Transitway.

Costs of light rail construction

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

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

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

Variations

Trams operating on mainline railways

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

Some of the issues involved in such schemes are:
*compatibility of the safety systems
*power supply of the track in relation to the power used by the vehicles (frequently different voltages, rarely third rail vs overhead wires)
*width of the vehicles in relation to the position of the platforms
*height of the platforms

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

Third-rail power for trams

In the French city of Bordeaux, Citadis trams are powered by a third rail in the city center, where the tracks are not always segregated from pedestrians and cars. The third rail (actually two closely spaced rails) is placed in the middle of the track, and divided into eight-metre sections, each of which is only powered while it is completely covered by a tram. This minimises the risk of a person or animal coming into contact with a live rail. In outer areas, the trams switch to conventional overhead wires.

In practice the Bordeaux power system cost about three times as much as a conventional overhead wire system and took 24 months to achieve acceptable levels of reliability, requiring replacement of all the main cables and power supplies. Operating and maintenance costs of the innovative power system still remain high. However, despite numerous service outages, the system was a success with the public, gaining up to 190,000 passengers per day.

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

Scale models of light rail vehicles

German models of trams (Düwag and Siemens) and a bus in HO scale

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

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

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

See also

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

External links

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

Links to sites advocating light rail

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

Links to sites opposing light rail

Note: the following links are from organizations that oppose light rail out of ideological reasons.
* 'Breech of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth' highlighting alleged wastefulness and ineffectiveness of light rail projects An argument against utilization of a light rail system in Charlotte, NC
* LightRail POW! - A website documenting the safety hazards of light rail
* The Monorail Society - A pro-monorail web site that promotes grade-separate rather than street-based transit.

References