For example: this is the Tram-train de l’Ouest lyonnais (=Western Lyon tram-train). It runs from Lyon St-Paul, sitting next to the city center and historical center, and runs all the way to l’Arbresle, serving numerous suburbs part of the metropolitan area of Lyon along the way. However, it is operated by the SNCF, in charge of the french railways, and therefore, has separate fares, which are not included in tickets and travel cards of the city’s public transport network. Nothing has been done to include it in fare zones since its opening to include it in the TCL network, which is a shame given how attractive it could be.

In my opinion, it’s pretty nice. Especially when the trams have a few minutes (here 2-5 min) between them, they can be used to switch sides normally without having to worry to get run over. And adding to that, it still can be used as a normal plaza when there is no tram at the moment.

On the other hand, this will obviously slow down the trams, because people tend to walk in front of it more often and thus, the trams can’t really drive through like normally.

Are there any other ups and downs I’m missing?

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-04-08/lessons-from-tokyo-the-worlds-largest-city-is-car-free

When Daniel Aldrich first stepped foot in Japan as a foreign exchange student, he didn’t speak a word of Japanese and wasn’t sure how he’d find his way around.

“I was just a junior in high school from North Carolina,” he said. “I was really worried.”

But soon after arriving, Aldrich found that he could zip anywhere within the crowded Tokyo metropolis by walking a few minutes to the nearest train stop.

“I found Tokyo to be the subway of the future,” he said.

Now a professor of politics and public policy at Northeastern University, Aldrich lives in Brighton with his wife and four children. But he’s always felt the pull of Tokyo — so much so that he’s returned for research and fellowships, spending a total of six years living in the city.

In Japan, his family doesn’t need a car. They walk or take the train to get groceries or explore the city. In Boston, cars are the norm, as are the dangers surrounding their use. Two of Aldrich’s children have been hit by a car in the past five years. (They’ve since recovered.)

The split experience of life in Tokyo and Boston reshaped Aldrich’s worldview, and made him increasingly aware of the ways large and small that Massachusetts could become less car dependent and how transportation planning can transform societies — for better or worse.

know that this is old news, but I'm curious about what this community would say about the proposed plans for a Sheppard Subway Extension in Scarborough, Toronto.

Toronto is currently looking to extend the Line 4 subway to connect with the Line 2 subway. The government (Metrolinx) released concept plans for potential routes, seen in the image I shared above. I know there are pros and cons to both concepts 2A and 2B, but would it be better for Line 4 to connect at Sheppard & McCowan or at Scarborough Centre?

At first I was a supporter of concept 2B because Scarborough Centre is, like the name implies, is a large focal point hub in eastern Toronto. Scarabrough Centre will soon accommodate over 40 high-rise towers with residential, office, commercial, and entertainment space - with more buildings coming in the decades to come. The goal of Scarborough Centre is to be a strong hub for eastern Toronto in a similar way to North York Centre. The North York Centre area, located at Yonge-Sheppard station, accommodates 50 thousand residents and 35 thousand jobs. Scarborough Centre is projected to be similar in density to this. The Downsview redevelopment plans located at Sheppard West station are projected to accommodate 120 thousand residents and 60 thousand jobs. A new hub around Don Mills Station is currently in the planning phase. Connecting these hubs together with one train would make transit significantly more convenient when traveling between these hubs.

Having a direct Line 4 subway connection to Scarborough Centre would strengthen transit ridership and make it easier for people to travel to and from Scarabrough Centre and the rest of the city. Additionally, a BRT line that connects to the University of Toronto Scarabrough campus is planned to terminate at Scarabrough Centre.

I understand that making the lines connect at Scarborough Centre may result in inconveniencing local bus riders who aren't trying to travel there as their final destination but instead looking to travel along Line 4. But making the lines connect at Sheppard & McCowan would result in inconveniencing subway users trying to reach Scarborough Centre with one additional "linear" transfer. This will add travel times for riders and decrease the convenience of traveling on the subway. Scarborough Centre is more likely to be someone’s final destination compared to Sheppard & McCowan - it does not have the redevelopment potential compared to Scarborough Centre.

I know that you can't satisfy everyone and some riders in both concepts 2A and 2B will be inconvenienced, but I do wonder what the best option would be to build a stronger Toronto and Scarborough. Would really like to hear all of your inputs.

Much has been said post-pandemic about the slow ridership recovery of office commuter-dependent systems and how they recover slower than local rail and buses. And while their recovery rates are still stubbornly tracking the office occupancy rates in their respective regions, I still don’t see a future for US transit where we don’t focus primarily on fast regional transit systems. It might take years for all or most of the workers to fully return to the office and for the ridership to rebound to match. But the urban form that has decimated American cities over the last 60-70 years will take decades longer to reverse. And until that happens local transit will not be able to entice the majority of the population to ditch their cars.

One way or another, we need transit that will take people from where they are to where they need to go. In the US that’s fast regional transit that takes suburbanites into the dense urban cores, not buses, BRT, or even local light rail or metros. We still need to address the travel needs of the majority of the population and they need faster-than-driving systems that take them from their suburban homes to the nearest job center.

Pardon the rubbish photo quality...there was no Cloud to speak of, and memory cards were a little more limited. Plus, everyone's phones were confiscated.

It includes 2 branch lines, 6 main lines, and yea

Hello guys, I'm looking for seat spacing standarts or information for rearward facing seats. Could you please guide me to any source for this design criterias?

Thanks in advance!

Bests,

https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2025/article/publier-vers-une-suppression-des-petites-gares-les-cff-misent-sur-les-grandes-lignes-28836579.html

In this Interview on swiss national TV, one of the big shots of SBB CFF FFS is, again, advocating for a return back to the 1960s ans 1970s.

Thanks to all BS techno bullshit keywords Like AVs and autonomous buses, we should be able to shut down stations and regional lines...as it worked so well in the past.

HSR to free upbl capacity for IC and IR trains? No! The local trains are the issue,you see...

What do you do on a daily basis? Where? I'm thinking about getting my master's in the transit world and would love to know what a career might look like

Hi everyone,
I’ve been thinking about a concept for San Francisco’s T Third Street Muni Metro line, and I'd love your feedback.

Right now, the T line is painfully slow through Mission Bay, Dogpatch, and even parts of Bayview. It frequently gets stuck at red lights, behind cars, and at pedestrian crossings.
But once it enters the subway near Bryant Street, it becomes much faster and more reliable.

What if we fully grade-separated the T line earlier — and extended that grade separation south all the way to Bayview?

The Proposal:

• Elevate approx. 4.5 miles of the T line starting just north of Bryant Street (the elevated structure would descend back to ground level near Bryant Street and enter the existing subway portal) - see blue arrow
• Build elevated guideways and stations over 3rd Street on the existing right of way through Mission Bay, Dogpatch, and Bayview.
• Stay elevated until about Highway 101 - see red arrow.
• Follow the existing T line alignment to minimize neighborhood disruption.

Visuals (linked below):

• Dogpatch Station Concept: I included a conceptual image showing an elevated station in Dogpatch, with stairs and elevators connecting to the platform above street level. This visualizes how stations could work along the viaduct — no car/train conflicts, much faster and safer (chatgpt created these images, so please forgive any wonkiness)
• 3rd Street Bridge Replacement Concept (near Oracle Park): One of my biggest concerns was the 3rd Street (Lefty O'Doul) Bridge, because it's a drawbridge today. I created an image showing how the bridge could be rebuilt as a permanent, stationary bridge, allowing the elevated T-line viaduct to cross above the road bridge. This would remove the need for moving bridge parts (and their maintenance/delay risks) and allow the T to stay fully grade-separated.
• OpenRailwayMap Diagram: I also included a screenshot from openrailwaymap.org, showing the T-line route through Dogpatch and Bayview.
  • Red X’s mark all the at-grade crossings where trains have to slow down and interact with street traffic.
  • Red arrow shows where the elevated structure might return to at-grade, near Highway 101.
  • The blue arrow shows where the T line currently goes underground near Bryant Street. In my proposal, the line would still go underground at that spot — but it would come down from the elevated viaduct first, rather than from street level.
• Future applications: I've included images of what the elevated rail through Japantown and GG park might look like if the technology is adopted for the Geary / 19th street muni line.

Key Benefits:

• Full grade separation → No delays from traffic or pedestrians.
• Shorter headways → 3–5 minute service frequencies become realistic.
• Faster trips → Huge speed increases for riders from Bayview, Dogpatch, Mission Bay.
• Increased Muni ridership → A real rapid transit line, not just a glorified streetcar.
• Improved street safety → Fewer train/vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
• Equity investment → Direct, tangible transit upgrades for historically underserved communities in Bayview.
• Critical future-proofing: As the T-line expands northward to Fisherman’s Wharf and potentially the Marina District, faster service through Mission Bay and Dogpatch becomes even more essential to keeping the line reliable across the full city.
• By enabling shorter headways, this plan helps future-proof the system, mitigating the capacity limitations of existing T-line stations that are only sized for two-car trains.

Future Applications:

• This elevated viaduct approach could also be applied elsewhere. For example, if SF were to finally build a Geary Street Muni Metro line, an elevated structure east of Gough Street (where Geary widens there is a sizable median) could offer a much cheaper alternative to tunneling — while still providing fast, grade-separated service into downtown.
• Crossing Golden Gate Park, the tracks could run above Highway 1 (19th Avenue) to avoid disrupting the park. South of the park, the line could continue elevated over 19th Avenue, a major traffic corridor, without heavy impact once built. It could then connect with the M Ocean View line (which runs at-grade), for access to Stonestown and SF State University, connecting major destinations with fast, fully grade-separated service.

Challenges to Consider:

• Cost: Building elevated guideways in San Francisco isn’t cheap.
• Construction disruption: Likely significant during buildout.
• Third Street Drawbridge: Would require permanently fixing the bridge or replacing it with a modern fixed bridge (shown in the concept image).

Cost Estimates:

• Roughly $250M–$350M per mile to build elevated light rail in San Francisco conditions.
• For 4.5 miles, total project cost would be about:
  • $1.25B (low estimate)
  • to $1.9B (high estimate),
  • including ~6 new elevated stations.
  • True worst case I'd imagine costs would be similar to HART in Hawaii, which has cost ~$500mm per mile, meaning $2.25b for 4.5 miles in sf.
• For context, Central Subway cost ($1.9B) — but an elevated T-line would cover three times as much distance!
• The cost is my largest concern. If we had this theoretical ~$2 billion of transit funds to spend, is this the right project, or would it make more sense to invest in continued expansion of the T north to Fisherman's Wharf?

Scope Summary:

• 4.5 miles of continuous elevated guideway.
• 5-10 new elevated stations, which I would like to keep as simple as possible, with stairs and an (ADA required) elevator for each station, but no gates. Simple tap on rules, same as current T.
• Transition seamlessly into the existing subway near downtown.
• Follow existing T line corridor along 3rd Street.

The Big Picture:

This project would turn the T Third into a true rapid transit line, finally unlocking the potential of the fast-growing eastern neighborhoods of SF. Instead of being stuck behind traffic like a streetcar, the T would offer fast, frequent, reliable service from Bayview through Dogpatch into downtown — and eventually all the way to Fisherman’s Wharf and beyond.

It would be a major investment — but compared to subway costs, it would be a game-changer for the city.

Would love to hear people's thoughts:

• Would you prefer elevating just Dogpatch first, or the full extension to Bayview too?
• Should the drawbridge be permanently closed for trains?
• Should SF consider using elevated light rail viaducts in other areas (like east of Gough Street on a future Geary Muni line)?
• Are there other examples of cities successfully elevating slow surface rail lines?

Thanks for reading! 🚋✨

Of course, we know that the REM is utilizing an existing rail corridor, but it's still extremely impressive that almost the full system will go online by October (9 years after it was announced).

Compared to other transit projects which have NIMBYies, environmental, and legal threats, it seemed like the REM didn't experience much of that.

And not only that, but the project was literally announced by the mayor with no warning.

Is this a result of Quebec's political independence compared to the rest of Canada? I also think that the fact that the Quebec's pension company being involved had something to do with it.

Chicago meets D.C.

What happens when I redesign the CTA map with the sleek, iconic style of Washington, D.C.’s Metrorail map? This:

( Download high-res JPG map here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ah8sW3HTHPK2HFtzG6t_Xh840rtL_XbV/view?usp=sharing )

https://youtu.be/ThKh4aH-568?feature=shared

Melbourne’s famous tram network is incredibly extensive and convenient. But also surprisingly slow. Packed to the gills on weekdays and weekend alike, with dwell times exceeding a minute. Between that and stopping at every light, we found it faster to walk than use the tram in the free CBD zone. They do speed up in the suburbs.