[ashelmire]

> it's only benefit is bragging rights since it can never be faster than ordinary traffic

This is 100% false. I take Philly's Market-Frankford line many days, it's absolutely faster and easier than driving. But I guess maybe you aren't counting elevated / buried rail.

Even still, give the trains priority and they will beat traffic.

[crusty]

The blue and orange Subway lines in Philly are not light rail. Light rail in Philly would be the green lines heading into west Philly, the trolley on Girard Ave (55?) Heading east/west on the northern edge of the downtown core, and the lines heading out west from the 69th street terminal. Interestingly, they cover the spectrum, with the 55 in traffic all of the time, the green lines underground on dedicated rails on the most congested part of their routes and in mostly two lane traffic for the rest, and the high speed lines on dedicated tracks connecting the far edge of West Philly, where the market Frankfort terminates, to outer suburbs.

[Mvhsz]

Part of the problem around light rail is that it's so broad. Just looking at the range of meanings of light rail in Philly, I have no idea how anyone talking about "light rail" could say that their argument applies to all of the forms it could take.

Also I can confirm that Philly's combination of light and heavy rail will get you from many places in the city and suburbs to downtown faster than driving. Buses do an adequate job of last mile in the suburbs but even several miles outside the city there's still a good fraction of the population within a half mile of a rail stop. My point is that this system exists because rail lines were built through the middle of nowhere by the steel industry 100+ years ago. The tracks, rail cars, stations, and signals have all been replaced but the right-of-way remained. The author focused too much on the method of transit and not the long-term strategic benefits of a city owning a dedicated transit route to allow for future growth.

edit: added 2nd paragraph responding to parent comment

[ashelmire]

> Light rail in Philly would be the green lines heading into west Philly

No, those are trolleys. Explicitly not light rail. You can't compare a trolley seriously to the trains we're calling "light rail" in LA and other cities.

'The basic concepts of light rail were put forward by H. Dean Quinby in 1962 in an article in Traffic Quarterly called "Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept". Quinby distinguished this new concept in rail transportation from historic streetcar or tram systems as:

having the capacity to carry more passengers appearing like a train, with more than one car connected together'

Note that first and second qualifier for light rail, which a one-car trolley with capacity identical to a bus absolutely does not fit. Light rail has a specific meaning, and it's different from trolley/tram by design. If SEPTA or others are calling the trolleys light rail, they are misusing the term.

Additionally, as a counterexample to the issues in the article - the trolleys are taken more by the working poor than the more affluent in Philly.