Streetcar resurgence USA?

[Bus Nut]

It seems like only yesterday that streetcars belonged to a bygone era, with a scant few LRVs with ugly noses in street running portions as a curiosity that most Americans didn't understand and most were hostile to.

And then Salt Lake City happened.

And then things began to change.

The rubber tire barons gave it one last try--the Volpe Center pushed "BRT" on local governments' alternatives analyses. In their own backyard, they convinced Boston at great expense to convert the Silver Line from the community's desired Green Line-like light rail to a dual-mode bus.

But BRT was a paper tiger. The public saw through it.

City after city is building streetcars right now.

It started with New Orleans. The city's tourists were long familiar with its lone historically preserved streetcar line, but in the late 1980s the city broke ground on the Riverside line as part of a revitalization scheme. The line was a victim of its own success and had to be shut down for capacity enhancements. By the mid-2000s, the line had been completely converted to a different gauge and integrated into a multi-line streetcar system with wheelchair accessible streetcars that combined modern chassis with old school carbody design.

The number and identity of the cities building streetcar lines right now is astounding. It ranges from the unsurprising Seattle, WA (which has 35 years+ of abortive mass transit schemes under its belt) and Portland, WA, which added tourist-friendly streetcars to the suburb-friendly LRV system, to transit-hating Atlanta, GA, sunbelt city Tuscon, AZ, the bickering and indecisive city government of Washington, DC, and Cincinnati, OH. Ohio was once criss-crossed by interurban lines but today has shamefully poor access to rail transit.

And unlike the commuter rail resurgence of the 1990s that primarily benefitted suburban commuters, a population that trended white and middle to upper middle class, streetcar projects are being enthusiastically pursued today in urban, mixed income, primarily African-American communities that for years had to contend with dirty diesel fumes and rubber tire pollution, long waits and fueling facilities sited in their neighborhoods, despite the legal requirements for environmental justice enshrined in law since the 1960s.

The change is astounding and I wonder if it's a sign of things to come.

 

[DET63]

"Portland, WA"? Never heard of that town.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Austin is also planning a Street Car/Trolley System but of course None of us will Still Be Alive IFand When it Ever gets Built/Starts Operating! :help:

 

[JayPea]

"Portland, WA"? Never heard of that town.

It's right across the river from Vancouver, OR. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jphjaxfl]

The Minneapolis City Council just approved funs for a streetcar line along Nicollet and Central Avenues as beginining to a more comprehensive network. Minneapolis/St. Paul had an extensive streetcar system until the early 1950s. Many of the current bus city bus routes follow the earlier streetcar lines. Its very easy to tell where neigborhood shopping areas developed along the streetcar lines. Since the Hiawatha lightrail line began operating there has been much new development along that route. Of course Minneapolis has had for many years the heritage Lake Harriett streetcar which runs long the former Como-Hopkins private right of way from Lake Calhourn to Lake Harriett in summer months.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Add Arlington County, Virginia to the "In the Planning Stage" list.

And add Alexandria, Virginia to the "In Limbo" list.

 

[cirdan]

Unfortunately, there have also been cases where well intended revival projects failed and costly investments lie abandoned. Think Galveston Island or Detroit or the Seattle Waterfront line.

Building the lines alone is not enough. There has to be an overlying strategy of embedding them in a broader transportation strategy and urbanist planning objectives.

 

[leemell]

The fall of the streetcars in LA was the result of non-use by the public with the availability of the low cost private automobile. The streetcar companies went bankrupt (some more than once), or were just shut down. They were originally built to carry customers to new and mostly undeveloped suburbs and with infill and cars, that did them in then. No great "rubber tire barons" as villains, although the car companies did nothing to help them.

 

[railiner]

To this oldtimer, old enough to see the almost end of rail passenger service, both long distance, commuter, and local transit; the resurgence of all of them is nothing short of miraculous.... There was a time in the mid 1970's, when I could claim to have ridden over every single passenger rail line still in operation in the US. They are proliferating at such a rate now, that I would have a lot of traveling to do to make that claim today......

 

[DET63]

"Portland, WA"? Never heard of that town.

It's right across the river from Vancouver, OR. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And I thought Vancouver was in Canada! I'm so confused ...

 

[The Davy Crockett]

"Portland, WA"? Never heard of that town.

It's right across the river from Vancouver, OR. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And I thought Vancouver was in Canada! I'm so confused ...

It is.

But...

it is an island, not a town. ...

And oh...

By the way...

 

[DET63]

But BRT was a paper tiger. The public saw through it.

Not sure about that. At least AC Transit doesn't seem to think so: BRT in the East Bay

“Better Rapid Transit”

BRT is not only Bus Rapid Transit, it is Better Rapid Transit. It is the best option available to restore high quality transit service, attract people out of their cars, and fight global warming. BRT can be built in phases, providing almost immediate relief and offering cost-effective future expansion options. It also attracts transit-oriented development.

 

[leemell]

But BRT was a paper tiger. The public saw through it.

Not sure about that. At least AC Transit doesn't seem to think so: BRT in the East Bay

“Better Rapid Transit”

BRT is not only Bus Rapid Transit, it is Better Rapid Transit. It is the best option available to restore high quality transit service, attract people out of their cars, and fight global warming. BRT can be built in phases, providing almost immediate relief and offering cost-effective future expansion options. It also attracts transit-oriented development.

LA Metro didn't either, The Orange line exceeded passenger volume expectations from the first day. They run jam packed most of the day. They are now building an about 4 mile extension. They have looked into buys buses that are 15 to 30% larger and are running them in small packs at rush hour.

 

[wendtsc]

I think there may be a number of cities already in way over their head on the streetcar craze. Many have pointed to Portland as the case study proving it leads to big economic development while conveniently ignoring that most land along the routes sat vacant (some close to 10 years) until the city provided subsidies and special tax rates to developers. The lesson there was government handouts will spur new condos much better than rails in the street. Milwaukee, last I heard, was looking at downtown circulator system with a pricetag of over $64 million. Not a good idea in my mind. The fact that Milwaukee, Atlanta and a number of other cities are planning or building starter streetcar systems (most with routes shorter than 3 miles) with price tags between $50 and $100 million dollars and include plans to expand to several lines in the future with even higher pricetags says their city planners seriously do not understand the role different types of rail should play in a city's transit system. These city's should be considering something a little beefier like Light Rail that can expand train lengths and later expand with serious stretches of separated ROW.

However, I will say that there is a future for streetcars and its a lot bigger than just a few cities. The real case study for the future of streetcars should be just down the lakeshore from Milwaukee in Kenosha! This is my favorite example of well planned public rail transit.

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/kenosha.htm

Streetcars are great for small cities with very clear transit needs along defined corridors. In Kenosha, they needed a way for people to get from the lakefront to the Metra station. Streetcars were the answer and they built the whole system for just $4 million. And because they focus on cost control, the system operates within the cities regular transit budget. Because care was taken to make sure that the streetcar project was well planned and well managed, when the time came to talk about expansion, the city council passed it by a vote of 16-1.

So, when a place like New Orleans or Savanah or Charleston, SC talks about streetcars, we should heartily encourage them to press forward with good planning to make their cities even better places to live and visit. But when large cities like Atlanta and Milwaukee start looking at streetcars to cure their ailing downtowns or to solve serious transit capacity issues on the cheap, we should all encourage them not to hop on the wrong bandwagon.

 

[MattW]

Actually, Atlanta's streetcar system is effectively just light rail running like a streetcar. The system will use Siemens S70 vehicles, but run right in the street, stopping every two blocks or so, only averaging 7.9mph to start. The initial system is planned to serve as the downtown access for more conventional light rail running on separated RoW at higher speeds.

 

[wendtsc]

Actually, Atlanta's streetcar system is effectively just light rail running like a streetcar. The system will use Siemens S70 vehicles, but run right in the street, stopping every two blocks or so, only averaging 7.9mph to start. The initial system is planned to serve as the downtown access for more conventional light rail running on separated RoW at higher speeds.

Well, that's good news that I hadn't heard. My apologies to Atlanta. :blush: Considering that I just praised them on another blog for their fiscal responsibility and for maintaining an excellent credit rating, I should have given them the benefit of a doubt and dug a little deeper before lumping them in with the likes of Milwaukee and Detroit

So, Atlanta along with Minneapolis serve to demonstrate more clearly the points I was trying to make. Streetcar systems (or circulators) should only be considered for large cities when they are used in a relatively small clearly defined area with clearly defined transit issues. Although my knowledge on ATL project is still lacking, I know more about MSP's proposal and while it shows promise, it also shows shows some misunderstanding of how and where streetcars are the right choice.

MSP has several streets in the downtown area that are heavily restricted for most traffic. Nicolet has been a bus and pedestrian corridor since I was a kid and when the Hiawatha Light Rail showed up several other streets were heavily impacted becoming one ways or basically alleys to accomodate the routing and the stations since MSP did not want its LRT mixing with regular traffic. So, because of the impact the LRT has already had and the addition of even more LRT traffic when the new Central corridor opens, additional needs in the downtown for clean, quiet and energy efficient transit also needs to be low impact when it comes to congestion. Another LRT line running on surface streets (the only option in MSP considering its huge skyway system and numerous underground parking and pedway structures) would result in an unacceptable impact on private vehicles and transit buses alike. The key in MSP and in the rest of its Metro area is that it utilizes almost every type of transit options available. Besides LRT and commuter rail, they use HOV lanes, variable pricing toll lanes, both dedicated express busways and bus lanes in a highly effective BRT network and a huge network of regular bus transit. Large carpool lots are scattered all around the metro area and huge incentives are offered to carpool organizers and drivers including free parking, free use of toll lanes and the use of government carpool vans on weekends. Dedicated users of ANY of these transit options also have "GUARANTEED RIDE HOME". If a late meeting results in a missed bus, train or carpool or illness at work or need to pick up a sick child from school means they need to leave early before their normal departure, they can take a cab and charge it to METRO Transit. And if they still prefer to drive all the way, on the edge of downtown, drivers exit freeways directly into parking ramps connected directly to the pedestrian skyway systems without ever driving on city streets. This encourages people to park and walk into downtown rather than clog city streets. Its into the center of this transit web that the Minneapolis Streetcars are being injected. Like the terminal shuttles at an airport, downtown streetcars can make sure no matter what gateway people use, getting the last few blocks to their destination will be easy. So, the portion of the MSP streetcar that would serve downtown make total sense.

This is where streetcars can really shine. Because they are compact (sometimes smaller than a bus) and capable of tight turns (tighter than LRT if using just one vehicle body), they can often mix with regular traffic without much impact. Also, because of their slow speeds and smaller size, they can react more like a bus stopping for traffic (meaning better collision avoidance) where LRT is more like an actual train (something both citizens and city planners in Texas failed to realize when they put LRT right through the middle of dense city traffic corridors). hboy: Streetcars are highly successful when its understood their key purpose is to provide expanded options for pedestrians, NOT DRIVERS! Streetcars allow those on foot to travel a little further, a little faster, a little easier than if they were just walking. This allows already walkable areas to be expanded and connect immediately adjacent high density residential to commercial centers or nearby transit hubs. Streetcars (and cable cars and trams) can do this much more efficiently than a bus, however because of their speed, they are terrible replacements for mainline innercity buses or private vehicles on distances of more than a few blocks. Anyone who thinks streetcars are the answer to getting people to abandon their cars clearly doesn't understand transit dynamics.

But most importantly, streetcars should never be sold as a savior for failing business districts or as a catalyst for spurring development. They can certainly make successful business districts more successful and make high density neighborhoods a little more livable, but they can't cure bad urban planning (like massive 60's era public housing projects) or miles long big box retail corridors. They also can't cure business fleeing downtowns because of high taxes, crime and corruption. And they should never be used as a fallback substitution for failed LRT projects or as a cure for low transit ridership. If people are already upset with bus transit because of service or cost, the last thing a city should do is think replacing buses with slower, more expensive streetcars is going to make them happy.

And here is where the failure of Minneapolis transit planners comes to light. 1) Planning to use a streetcar as a cheaper option to LRT. 2) Trying to use streetcars on city streets as a commuter option over distances greater than 5 miles. 3)Trying to use streetcars to save dying neighborhoods instead of curing the real problems. 4) Trying to use the streetcar to increase transit use by replacing existing bus routes with more expensive streetcars. Finally, when the total cost of your proposed streetcar network shoots over $200 million, it time to consider that you are trying to force fit the wrong transit option. Thankfully, MSP plans to start with the downtown segment. Hopefully, once its complete and operating, it will become more obvious that the rest of their network needs different solutions.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

But BRT was a paper tiger. The public saw through it.

Not sure about that. At least AC Transit doesn't seem to think so: BRT in the East Bay

“Better Rapid Transit”

BRT is not only Bus Rapid Transit, it is Better Rapid Transit. It is the best option available to restore high quality transit service, attract people out of their cars, and fight global warming. BRT can be built in phases, providing almost immediate relief and offering cost-effective future expansion options. It also attracts transit-oriented development.

LA Metro didn't either, The Orange line exceeded passenger volume expectations from the first day. They run jam packed most of the day. They are now building an about 4 mile extension. They have looked into buys buses that are 15 to 30% larger and are running them in small packs at rush hour.

They could just buy loads of NABI 65-BRT buses and run them at one-minute intervals. They may need some bi-artic buses or electric trackless trolleys, though. I really though the Silver Line would be more popular, running right along the freeway.

But man, LACMTA should have bought the New Flyer XD60 instead, or even so new NovaBus LFSA which weren't available at the time. I guess they are bent on using CNG!

I would really like to see more trackless trolley BRT using bi-artic buses. Make them high-floor with ADA-compliant high-level platforms. That should be a great cheap alternative to light rail.

 

[cirdan]

This is where streetcars can really shine. Because they are compact (sometimes smaller than a bus) and capable of tight turns (tighter than LRT if using just one vehicle body), they can often mix with regular traffic without much impact. Also, because of their slow speeds and smaller size, they can react more like a bus stopping for traffic (meaning better collision avoidance) where LRT is more like an actual train (something both citizens and city planners in Texas failed to realize when they put LRT right through the middle of dense city traffic corridors). hboy: Streetcars are highly successful when its understood their key purpose is to provide expanded options for pedestrians, NOT DRIVERS! Streetcars allow those on foot to travel a little further, a little faster, a little easier than if they were just walking. This allows already walkable areas to be expanded and connect immediately adjacent high density residential to commercial centers or nearby transit hubs. Streetcars (and cable cars and trams) can do this much more efficiently than a bus, however because of their speed, they are terrible replacements for mainline innercity buses or private vehicles on distances of more than a few blocks. Anyone who thinks streetcars are the answer to getting people to abandon their cars clearly doesn't understand transit dynamics.

But because streetcars and LRT are essentially related, if not the same solution being applied to two distinct problems, you can combine both into one system (as Atlanta seems to want to do). So Just because a streecar slows to pedestrain speed in walkable downtown areas, that doesn't mean it can't speed up a notch or two when outside that area.

What I'm trying to say is this. Classic old school transportation planning thought like this when it came to public transportation. You have a backbone system, say a metro or urban rail system covering several blocks if not tens of blocks between stations. Then you make every one of those stations a mini hub and have buses (or streectacrs if you like) radiating out of those hubs and stopping at every block. So the theory goes people hop on the bus or streetcar at the nearest opportunity, ride to the nearest mini hub, then take the metro to the mini-hub closest to where they want to go and then hop on an another bus. So three rides for one journey. In a mega city you can even increase that by having a a super metro overlaying the metro, again only serving every 10th stop or so, so adding even more changes of mode. If you want to consider the NEC one mega city, the Acela is the next level up on that.

But now moving down again to a city that has only two levels, say buses and a metro, and most large cities in the US are in that category, more or less. An LRT can under conditions do the job of a metro if traffic is not too high. And a streetcar can do the job of a bus. But as I said before, they are more or less the same technology. So why force passengers to change at the hub? This is the real beauty of streetcar / LRT when done properly. A stop at every block local can suddenly switch tracks and become an express before going back to being a local.

My observation is this. A lot of people ride long distances on buses, even though they could save minutes by getting of at the first hubm catching a metro, and maybe getting back onto the same bus route afterwards, but being one bus ahead. But they don't. For many people having a seat and staying there is worth more than that slightly extra speed and those minutes. And with more people getting older, this is going to increase. But we can at the same time make that streetcar more attractive by letting it do the job of the metro on those in-between sections. Or having alteernati services be fast or slow or something like that. The details have to be taylored for the individual circumstances and travel patterns.

 

[Nathanael]

LA Metro didn't either, The Orange line exceeded passenger volume expectations from the first day. They run jam packed most of the day. They are now building an about 4 mile extension. They have looked into buys buses that are 15 to 30% larger and are running them in small packs at rush hour.

In short, the Orange Line needed to be a rail line, because it's exceeding the capacity of buses.

LA had a long and deranged political history which prevented the Orange Line from being a rail line like the Blue and Gold and Expo lines. It is a history which other cities would do well to avoid. (Toronto seems to be repeating that history.)

The Orange Line is a story of buses sucking.

If you want a "success story" for "BRT", you would do much better to look at LA's "Metro Rapid" system, which has won universal acclaim and is "sized right" for the demand -- rail would be overkill on most of these corridors (apart from Wilshire, where they're building the subway).

 

[Nathanael]

I would really like to see more trackless trolley BRT using bi-artic buses. Make them high-floor with ADA-compliant high-level platforms. That should be a great cheap alternative to light rail.

Except for the fact that it would cost *more* than light rail, provide lower capacity, require vehicle replacement more often, require roadbed replacement more often, and provide a bumpier ride...

This is why BRT gets a bad name. Buses are simply not a substitute for trains. Buses are great in their own niche -- which is relatively low-capacity. Once you need high capacity, you want to articulate... and double-articulate... and triple-articulate... and then it becomes cheapest to just assemble a train. If you're going to create exclusive right-of-way, trains take *narrower right-of-way* than buses, making for *cheaper bridges*, *cheaper tunnels*, etc. This has been discovered in every busway project ever done -- they cost more than comparable railway projects.

Trains are a high-capacity solution for high-demand corridors. Buses are a lower-capacity solution for lower-demand corridors. Use the right tech for the right purpose. Austin, TX didn't need a passenger rail line meandering around the unpopulated outer edges of town, and nobody needs a busway on their biggest most busy commuter corridor.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I would really like to see more trackless trolley BRT using bi-artic buses. Make them high-floor with ADA-compliant high-level platforms. That should be a great cheap alternative to light rail.

Except for the fact that it would cost *more* than light rail, provide lower capacity, require vehicle replacement more often, require roadbed replacement more often, and provide a bumpier ride...

This is why BRT gets a bad name. Buses are simply not a substitute for trains. Buses are great in their own niche -- which is relatively low-capacity. Once you need high capacity, you want to articulate... and double-articulate... and triple-articulate... and then it becomes cheapest to just assemble a train. If you're going to create exclusive right-of-way, trains take *narrower right-of-way* than buses, making for *cheaper bridges*, *cheaper tunnels*, etc. This has been discovered in every busway project ever done -- they cost more than comparable railway projects.

Trains are a high-capacity solution for high-demand corridors. Buses are a lower-capacity solution for lower-demand corridors. Use the right tech for the right purpose. Austin, TX didn't need a passenger rail line meandering around the unpopulated outer edges of town, and nobody needs a busway on their biggest most busy commuter corridor.

I see your point, but with most American cities using a grid system, it's hard to find just the right corridor for high-capacity service. When there is huge demand, a heavy rail mainline is often better to serve it. Buses are good for those large grid cities that have a lot of straight, parallel routes to cover and not really any major lines. For example, in Chicago, the L radiates from the city center to serve high-demand commuters, while each bus route covers its own straight street in the grid. This prevents the buses from being too overcrowded because someone can just take the other parallel bus on the next street.

This is where streetcars can really shine. Because they are compact (sometimes smaller than a bus) and capable of tight turns (tighter than LRT if using just one vehicle body), they can often mix with regular traffic without much impact. Also, because of their slow speeds and smaller size, they can react more like a bus stopping for traffic (meaning better collision avoidance) where LRT is more like an actual train (something both citizens and city planners in Texas failed to realize when they put LRT right through the middle of dense city traffic corridors). hboy: Streetcars are highly successful when its understood their key purpose is to provide expanded options for pedestrians, NOT DRIVERS! Streetcars allow those on foot to travel a little further, a little faster, a little easier than if they were just walking. This allows already walkable areas to be expanded and connect immediately adjacent high density residential to commercial centers or nearby transit hubs. Streetcars (and cable cars and trams) can do this much more efficiently than a bus, however because of their speed, they are terrible replacements for mainline innercity buses or private vehicles on distances of more than a few blocks. Anyone who thinks streetcars are the answer to getting people to abandon their cars clearly doesn't understand transit dynamics.

But because streetcars and LRT are essentially related, if not the same solution being applied to two distinct problems, you can combine both into one system (as Atlanta seems to want to do). So Just because a streecar slows to pedestrain speed in walkable downtown areas, that doesn't mean it can't speed up a notch or two when outside that area.

What I'm trying to say is this. Classic old school transportation planning thought like this when it came to public transportation. You have a backbone system, say a metro or urban rail system covering several blocks if not tens of blocks between stations. Then you make every one of those stations a mini hub and have buses (or streectacrs if you like) radiating out of those hubs and stopping at every block. So the theory goes people hop on the bus or streetcar at the nearest opportunity, ride to the nearest mini hub, then take the metro to the mini-hub closest to where they want to go and then hop on an another bus. So three rides for one journey. In a mega city you can even increase that by having a a super metro overlaying the metro, again only serving every 10th stop or so, so adding even more changes of mode. If you want to consider the NEC one mega city, the Acela is the next level up on that.

But now moving down again to a city that has only two levels, say buses and a metro, and most large cities in the US are in that category, more or less. An LRT can under conditions do the job of a metro if traffic is not too high. And a streetcar can do the job of a bus. But as I said before, they are more or less the same technology. So why force passengers to change at the hub? This is the real beauty of streetcar / LRT when done properly. A stop at every block local can suddenly switch tracks and become an express before going back to being a local.

My observation is this. A lot of people ride long distances on buses, even though they could save minutes by getting of at the first hubm catching a metro, and maybe getting back onto the same bus route afterwards, but being one bus ahead. But they don't. For many people having a seat and staying there is worth more than that slightly extra speed and those minutes. And with more people getting older, this is going to increase. But we can at the same time make that streetcar more attractive by letting it do the job of the metro on those in-between sections. Or having alteernati services be fast or slow or something like that. The details have to be taylored for the individual circumstances and travel patterns.

I agree with this. I would rather ride the same vehicle in the same seat than transfer to save a trivial amount of time. But for express and local LRT/streecars on the same line would require four-track rights-of-way, and I don't know if much of those have existed. Buses can kinda do it if they have a dedicated wide busway or with intercity buses on the expressway. Some buses exit the expressway to stop, which others drive right past. It dosen't work in the city because the buses would get clogged up by traffic anyway.

LA Metro didn't either, The Orange line exceeded passenger volume expectations from the first day. They run jam packed most of the day. They are now building an about 4 mile extension. They have looked into buys buses that are 15 to 30% larger and are running them in small packs at rush hour.

In short, the Orange Line needed to be a rail line, because it's exceeding the capacity of buses.

LA had a long and deranged political history which prevented the Orange Line from being a rail line like the Blue and Gold and Expo lines. It is a history which other cities would do well to avoid. (Toronto seems to be repeating that history.)

The Orange Line is a story of buses sucking.

If you want a "success story" for "BRT", you would do much better to look at LA's "Metro Rapid" system, which has won universal acclaim and is "sized right" for the demand -- rail would be overkill on most of these corridors (apart from Wilshire, where they're building the subway).

Looking at the ridership figures, I see that the Silver Line is just right for an artic bus route but the Orange Line has so much demand they should have just made in an extension of the Red Line. they could have made it a kind of surface metro like the BMT Brighton Line or the IRT Dyre Avenue Line in New York.

 

[MattW]

Express service does not necessarily require more than two tracks. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and the Norristown High Speed Line are two examples right off hand that run express services.

 

[Anderson]

True, though it depends on how your frequencies are structured. At the very least, express service benefits from having pass-through tracks at "skipped" stations.

 

[jis]

True, though it depends on how your frequencies are structured. At the very least, express service benefits from having pass-through tracks at "skipped" stations.

Right, you have to plan the schedule and the track layout hand in hand. Passing tracks could be at stations or between stations. On HBLRT, there are triple track segments between stations that facilitate expresses overtaking locals.
The situation is sort of similar to how one runs a two way service on single track with passing sidings or segments of double track here and there, like on the River Line, or on the Croydon Tramlink in UK.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Express service does not necessarily require more than two tracks. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and the Norristown High Speed Line are two examples right off hand that run express services.

I'm not very familiar with Hudson-Bergen, but I've ridden the Norristown Line a bunch and I studied its schedules to see how the express service runs. It seems that the trips are times in blocks, with the Limited at the start, then Express, then Local. This prevent the Limited from catching up to the run in front of it and getting blocked in a local station.

The Norristown Line is not as popular as a light rail line inside an urban area. Urban light rail would require at least three tracks to handle express and local service during rush hour, like the Chicago Purple Line or the Diamond 6 from New York.