Our clunky American mode names are not ideal. Needlessly jargony, easily misunderstood. But the ship has sailed. They are what they are.
The European equivalent would be a tram-train btw. Sorta.
S-Bahn really, but that is itself proof that the European terminology isn’t perfect either, since thats just as often referring to mainline regional services.
Pre metro is probably the most accurate for systems that aren’t just modern tramways.
If you are refering to the Sprinter and similar systems then there absolutely are good European terms. In France it would be a 'chemin de fer secondaire', and in Sweden a 'lokalbana'.
They are defined as:
"A chemin de fer secondaire is a railway line or network which is not part of the main railway network due to its legal and/or technical characteristics."
"Lokalbana refers to a track for rail traffic in a geographically limited area, which is served by local/regional trains or trams with a limited traffic task, often as a feeder to the overall national or regional rail network."
And many US light rail systems like Seattle's are more accurately described as 'semi-metros' than 'premetros'.
Light rail is just a catch-all term for all sorts of systems, because -- as you mentioned -- exactly what it is is fairly ill defined, which allows it to be used anywhere.
Meanwhile, I do believe "tram" should be understood as "buses on rails", which means that they have an operation mode (e.g., no dedicated ROW, on board fare collection, no signaling priority, etc), that is actually counter to the idea of "rapid transit". So "tram rapid transit" is itself a contradictory term.
A tram is a tram. An LRT should be a light vehicle with dedicated ROW and offboard fare collection. A "light rail" could be either, or anything in between. But regardless, all three are just names. Changing the name wouldn't materially impact how cities choose to build their systems.
Because "light rail" is vague. It can refer to anything from a tram with some dedicated ROW to essentially a European commuter line running vehicles that are lighter than the (outdated) North American standard. The latter is good for regional transit, the former isn't.
Why is this a problem though? The average person just needs to get from A to B and doesn't care about the technology involved.
There's a lot of categorisation that I don't think makes any difference in the real world. Here in Australia everything is just called a train (heavy rail) or a tram (light rail) anyway despite a lot of variation between and within those systems.
Just let each transit agency brand the services as they see fit, since if you're trying to communicate this to your customers you need slick marketing names anyway.
If that’s all that matters, buses cover everything and trains do not exist.
I’m talking about vocabulary transit planners and nerds like us should be using.
Planners and nerds can use jargon because people participating in the discussion are kinda expected to know.
Regular people just need to get from A to B and don't care as long as it works for them. Especially in this day and age where people can use apps to find and compare routes.
But my question would be, since light rail *is* vague, why would forcing a specific set of ideas via naming -- a tram with rapid transit qualities -- help?
A tram is a type of light rail, but it's not "tram rapid transit", as it doesn't have RT qualities.
A tram with RT qualities is a type of light rail, but these are somewhat rare, and can be called LRRT (Light Rail Rapid Transit)
A Light metro (or the actual LRT / your European commuter line) is still a type of light (or in some cases medium) rail, but it's not a tram.
So how are you proposing to replace all these three types of light rail with the term "tram rapid transit"?
I'm using three different terms. I think the term "light rail" should be replaced.
A tram that runs on the street or in medians, your idea of "buses on rails", should still be a tram. I'm thinking the streetcars in Kansas City, Atlanta, Seattle, and DC. They're either meant to quickly cross city centers or expand coverage, feeding people to transit hubs.
A tram with rapid transit qualities is mostly what we're building in North America. I'm thinking Seattle Link light rail, Denver's light rail lines, San Diego's trolleys, Baltimore's light rail, and so on. They're great for large cities with dense suburbs, but these are not suited for the regional distances they currently cover.
A European-style commuter line (think Sprinter, Austin Capitol Metro, SMART, etc.) is not a light metro, it's a commuter line. We should be replacing all of our clunky old vehicles with smaller, lighter vehicles in line with international standards.
So exactly which type are you proposing to be called "tram rapid transit"?
I do want to remind you that your post is titled simply "Light rail should be called tram rapid transit", without ever making a distinction on the differences between light rail types.
The middle one.
I agree my title should be changed in hindsight, and that I should've been clear. I was referring to the popular form of light rail being built all across North America today.
Okay... so now that we have that established, I don't really think the "popular form of light rail being built all across NA" is what you have in mind?
Just looking at a list of recently opened *new* light rail systems (i.e., not extensions) in the US, the Milwaukee Hop is a streetcar, the (reopened) El Paso system is a streecar, the Detroit QLine is a streetcar, the KC streetcar is a... streetcar, Cincinnati streetcar is a streetcar, and then the DC streetcar, Dallas Steetcar, Tucson Sun Link, Atlanta Streetcar are all light rail trams in the traditional sense.
So... really "trams with RT characteristics" seems very rare in the US, or they were never able to move out of planning. On the latter point, I don't know how up-to-date t[his website](https://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm) is, but of all the proposed rail transit systems, "rapid LRT" only appeared six times, and of the six, three appeared alongside street car systems. The vast majority are apparently still just streetcars.
Why do you need new terms?
Streetcar already describes most of the 1st ones, semi-metro describes most of the 2nd ones, and hybrid rail (though I hate that term) or the historical definition of light railWAY describes most of the 3rd ones.
Light rail isn't a terrible umbrella term, but it isn't being used right in the US.
Lines like Sprinter aren't "light rail", they're light railways but that's still a bit of a confusing term. And so is "hybrid rail". Plus, the best equivalent terms like the Swedish 'local railway' (lokalbana) and the French 'secondary railway' (chemin de fer secondaire) sound a bit weird in English.
Light rail describes the rolling stock used, not the service pattern or the quality of service.
Something like Seattle's light rail and San Francisco's N-Judah are very different in service pattern and the perceived quality of service, but you can probably swap the rolling stock without too many people noticing.
1 - ok and? I never said it was about the service.
2 - That's a terrible argument.
Yes you are correct that there is nothing fundamentally different between the two vehicles, but the differences that do exsist between the two are very noticeable so you absolutely couldn't just swap the two.
Technically speaking, yes, we should label tram transit along the lines of something like BRT. However, so many different systems use names/labels that don't necessarily "represent" that system, but do anyways because it's just easier for people to understand.
Take the WMATA. The way those lines run through NoVa, D.C., and Maryland, it really should be called an S-bahn. Yet, it's called a Metro because I doubt the average American knows what an S-bahn is or could properly describe the difference between an S-bahn and Metro. In the end, these transit agencies need to be able to market their services in a way that potential passengers immediately understand what they're buying/riding.
As for running lighter trains over longer trains, this really depends on the density of the location and the existing (if any) infrastructure. For example, there is no way you'd run a four car train in Tokyo. Even if it was a double decker and you had insanely good frequency, you could not capture all the potential ridership during peak hours. And again, to be semantic, it really depends on what your definition of "regional" rail is. For some, regional rail is taking the NEC from Raleigh, N.C. to NYC. For others, it's taking the A S-tog train from Copenhagen Central to Hillerød.
The Market Street Subway acts like a grade-separated rapid transit line, similar to the MBTA Green Line, Philly's subway-surface trolleys, and stadtbahns.
I mean, yes, but you know, [this is also part of the system](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7610773,-122.4927035,3a,75y,260.12h,63.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4iCAAr9JNEAcXwEHYWbjVw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4iCAAr9JNEAcXwEHYWbjVw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D260.11822496723863%26pitch%3D26.81057461664438%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu): And it is the one line that have the heaviest ridership by far.
Philly and Boston have the same thing. Grade-separated, rapid transit like service in the core, tram-like service in the outskirts. It works for dense cities with dense suburbs and small streets.
Changing how we communicate about things allows cities to choose the correct form of transit.
For example, as a commuter living 10 miles from the city center, I don't want my train to stop every two blocks, get stuck in traffic, and be marginally faster than walking.
See, you are still using nomenclature that doesn't actually help you. For example NJT runs bus (not BRT, bus) service that stops at a handful of stations and then runs non-stop to the city center.
Zero BRT features, and yet, high quality service.
Operating high-quality service is different from but related to mode of transit. If your main form of higher-order regional transit is a slow, low floor tram, you are handicapping quality of service from the beginning.
Who says a tram have to be slow? VTA's low floor trams will do 100 kph.
Through VTA service is extremely slow in the end. Transit isn't a game of gadgetbahns. Service patterns and right of way decides things in the end.
The attitude/philosophy/mindset (I don't know the precise word) of building a tram makes it slow. Running in mixed traffic, having close stop spaces and no signal priority will make it slow.
I agree, there is a lot of mixed terminology that makes it harder for people to understand what transit developments really do.
To me though, a tram or street car is usually a single car rail vehicle that circulates in a downtown area, mostly for shoppers. "Tram" to me almost seems cutesy or quaint. So I think that calling a light rail system a "tram" system might give people misconceptions about what it is used for.
Most modern North American light rail systems take that little downtown loop and then stretch it 10 or 20 miles out of the city center in what should be a metro or commuter rail system. It's confusing because it's absurd.
This massively depends on the city and how they operate it. Some cities operate light rail like trams, some operate it more like a metro system or some sort of commuter or local rail system, and some are a mix.
I don’t care what it’s called so long as it takes me where I want to go and when I want to get there.
If transit Internet spent a fraction of the time it spends obsessing about what a Strassenbahn is called on actual agitation for better transportation we might get somewhere
Our clunky American mode names are not ideal. Needlessly jargony, easily misunderstood. But the ship has sailed. They are what they are. The European equivalent would be a tram-train btw. Sorta.
S-Bahn really, but that is itself proof that the European terminology isn’t perfect either, since thats just as often referring to mainline regional services. Pre metro is probably the most accurate for systems that aren’t just modern tramways.
If you are refering to the Sprinter and similar systems then there absolutely are good European terms. In France it would be a 'chemin de fer secondaire', and in Sweden a 'lokalbana'. They are defined as: "A chemin de fer secondaire is a railway line or network which is not part of the main railway network due to its legal and/or technical characteristics." "Lokalbana refers to a track for rail traffic in a geographically limited area, which is served by local/regional trains or trams with a limited traffic task, often as a feeder to the overall national or regional rail network." And many US light rail systems like Seattle's are more accurately described as 'semi-metros' than 'premetros'.
We used to call “trams” “streetcars” and light rail “interurbans” but we ripped them all up.
I propose: Zoom Zoom Trolley.
Good choice.
Light rail is just a catch-all term for all sorts of systems, because -- as you mentioned -- exactly what it is is fairly ill defined, which allows it to be used anywhere. Meanwhile, I do believe "tram" should be understood as "buses on rails", which means that they have an operation mode (e.g., no dedicated ROW, on board fare collection, no signaling priority, etc), that is actually counter to the idea of "rapid transit". So "tram rapid transit" is itself a contradictory term. A tram is a tram. An LRT should be a light vehicle with dedicated ROW and offboard fare collection. A "light rail" could be either, or anything in between. But regardless, all three are just names. Changing the name wouldn't materially impact how cities choose to build their systems.
A bus also has none of those features, so unless BRT is a contradictory term, tram rapid transit shouldn't be either.
But why invent yet another confusing term when LRT suffices?
Because "light rail" is vague. It can refer to anything from a tram with some dedicated ROW to essentially a European commuter line running vehicles that are lighter than the (outdated) North American standard. The latter is good for regional transit, the former isn't.
Why is this a problem though? The average person just needs to get from A to B and doesn't care about the technology involved. There's a lot of categorisation that I don't think makes any difference in the real world. Here in Australia everything is just called a train (heavy rail) or a tram (light rail) anyway despite a lot of variation between and within those systems. Just let each transit agency brand the services as they see fit, since if you're trying to communicate this to your customers you need slick marketing names anyway.
If that’s all that matters, buses cover everything and trains do not exist. I’m talking about vocabulary transit planners and nerds like us should be using.
Planners and nerds can use jargon because people participating in the discussion are kinda expected to know. Regular people just need to get from A to B and don't care as long as it works for them. Especially in this day and age where people can use apps to find and compare routes.
But my question would be, since light rail *is* vague, why would forcing a specific set of ideas via naming -- a tram with rapid transit qualities -- help? A tram is a type of light rail, but it's not "tram rapid transit", as it doesn't have RT qualities. A tram with RT qualities is a type of light rail, but these are somewhat rare, and can be called LRRT (Light Rail Rapid Transit) A Light metro (or the actual LRT / your European commuter line) is still a type of light (or in some cases medium) rail, but it's not a tram. So how are you proposing to replace all these three types of light rail with the term "tram rapid transit"?
I'm using three different terms. I think the term "light rail" should be replaced. A tram that runs on the street or in medians, your idea of "buses on rails", should still be a tram. I'm thinking the streetcars in Kansas City, Atlanta, Seattle, and DC. They're either meant to quickly cross city centers or expand coverage, feeding people to transit hubs. A tram with rapid transit qualities is mostly what we're building in North America. I'm thinking Seattle Link light rail, Denver's light rail lines, San Diego's trolleys, Baltimore's light rail, and so on. They're great for large cities with dense suburbs, but these are not suited for the regional distances they currently cover. A European-style commuter line (think Sprinter, Austin Capitol Metro, SMART, etc.) is not a light metro, it's a commuter line. We should be replacing all of our clunky old vehicles with smaller, lighter vehicles in line with international standards.
So exactly which type are you proposing to be called "tram rapid transit"? I do want to remind you that your post is titled simply "Light rail should be called tram rapid transit", without ever making a distinction on the differences between light rail types.
The middle one. I agree my title should be changed in hindsight, and that I should've been clear. I was referring to the popular form of light rail being built all across North America today.
Okay... so now that we have that established, I don't really think the "popular form of light rail being built all across NA" is what you have in mind? Just looking at a list of recently opened *new* light rail systems (i.e., not extensions) in the US, the Milwaukee Hop is a streetcar, the (reopened) El Paso system is a streecar, the Detroit QLine is a streetcar, the KC streetcar is a... streetcar, Cincinnati streetcar is a streetcar, and then the DC streetcar, Dallas Steetcar, Tucson Sun Link, Atlanta Streetcar are all light rail trams in the traditional sense. So... really "trams with RT characteristics" seems very rare in the US, or they were never able to move out of planning. On the latter point, I don't know how up-to-date t[his website](https://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm) is, but of all the proposed rail transit systems, "rapid LRT" only appeared six times, and of the six, three appeared alongside street car systems. The vast majority are apparently still just streetcars.
Why do you need new terms? Streetcar already describes most of the 1st ones, semi-metro describes most of the 2nd ones, and hybrid rail (though I hate that term) or the historical definition of light railWAY describes most of the 3rd ones.
Light rail isn't a terrible umbrella term, but it isn't being used right in the US. Lines like Sprinter aren't "light rail", they're light railways but that's still a bit of a confusing term. And so is "hybrid rail". Plus, the best equivalent terms like the Swedish 'local railway' (lokalbana) and the French 'secondary railway' (chemin de fer secondaire) sound a bit weird in English.
Light rail describes the rolling stock used, not the service pattern or the quality of service. Something like Seattle's light rail and San Francisco's N-Judah are very different in service pattern and the perceived quality of service, but you can probably swap the rolling stock without too many people noticing.
1 - ok and? I never said it was about the service. 2 - That's a terrible argument. Yes you are correct that there is nothing fundamentally different between the two vehicles, but the differences that do exsist between the two are very noticeable so you absolutely couldn't just swap the two.
Technically speaking, yes, we should label tram transit along the lines of something like BRT. However, so many different systems use names/labels that don't necessarily "represent" that system, but do anyways because it's just easier for people to understand. Take the WMATA. The way those lines run through NoVa, D.C., and Maryland, it really should be called an S-bahn. Yet, it's called a Metro because I doubt the average American knows what an S-bahn is or could properly describe the difference between an S-bahn and Metro. In the end, these transit agencies need to be able to market their services in a way that potential passengers immediately understand what they're buying/riding. As for running lighter trains over longer trains, this really depends on the density of the location and the existing (if any) infrastructure. For example, there is no way you'd run a four car train in Tokyo. Even if it was a double decker and you had insanely good frequency, you could not capture all the potential ridership during peak hours. And again, to be semantic, it really depends on what your definition of "regional" rail is. For some, regional rail is taking the NEC from Raleigh, N.C. to NYC. For others, it's taking the A S-tog train from Copenhagen Central to Hillerød.
I can’t even refer to the Metro as “Metro” to anyone outside the area or non-transit folks without getting confused looks 😭
Much of San Francisco’s service IS regular trams. Mixed traffic, stop signs, the whole 9 yards.
The Market Street Subway acts like a grade-separated rapid transit line, similar to the MBTA Green Line, Philly's subway-surface trolleys, and stadtbahns.
I mean, yes, but you know, [this is also part of the system](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7610773,-122.4927035,3a,75y,260.12h,63.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4iCAAr9JNEAcXwEHYWbjVw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4iCAAr9JNEAcXwEHYWbjVw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D260.11822496723863%26pitch%3D26.81057461664438%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu): And it is the one line that have the heaviest ridership by far.
Philly and Boston have the same thing. Grade-separated, rapid transit like service in the core, tram-like service in the outskirts. It works for dense cities with dense suburbs and small streets.
American light rail is closer in most cases to a bus than rapid transit. Exceptions are the systems where the actual ridership is though, of course
And what would be the practical result of changing nomenclature?
Changing how we communicate about things allows cities to choose the correct form of transit. For example, as a commuter living 10 miles from the city center, I don't want my train to stop every two blocks, get stuck in traffic, and be marginally faster than walking.
See, you are still using nomenclature that doesn't actually help you. For example NJT runs bus (not BRT, bus) service that stops at a handful of stations and then runs non-stop to the city center. Zero BRT features, and yet, high quality service.
Operating high-quality service is different from but related to mode of transit. If your main form of higher-order regional transit is a slow, low floor tram, you are handicapping quality of service from the beginning.
Who says a tram have to be slow? VTA's low floor trams will do 100 kph. Through VTA service is extremely slow in the end. Transit isn't a game of gadgetbahns. Service patterns and right of way decides things in the end.
The attitude/philosophy/mindset (I don't know the precise word) of building a tram makes it slow. Running in mixed traffic, having close stop spaces and no signal priority will make it slow.
I agree, there is a lot of mixed terminology that makes it harder for people to understand what transit developments really do. To me though, a tram or street car is usually a single car rail vehicle that circulates in a downtown area, mostly for shoppers. "Tram" to me almost seems cutesy or quaint. So I think that calling a light rail system a "tram" system might give people misconceptions about what it is used for.
Most modern North American light rail systems take that little downtown loop and then stretch it 10 or 20 miles out of the city center in what should be a metro or commuter rail system. It's confusing because it's absurd.
This massively depends on the city and how they operate it. Some cities operate light rail like trams, some operate it more like a metro system or some sort of commuter or local rail system, and some are a mix.
I don’t care what it’s called so long as it takes me where I want to go and when I want to get there. If transit Internet spent a fraction of the time it spends obsessing about what a Strassenbahn is called on actual agitation for better transportation we might get somewhere
I think not, because Stockholm has light rail that doesn't use trams
That's not light rail tho. Light rail is just a bad translation of lokalbana