>Mr.Gaarder is also against
>some thing called "North Star" is this a Twin Cities commuter rail project?
Yep. The North Star is a commuter rail from St. Cloud (about 90 miles away)
to DT Mpls.
>On a historical note check out http://www.erha.org/plot2.htm and read the
>Twin Cities section.
I've been getting into local history lately on the area, and it's sad how
much was destroyed and changed, mostly because of cars. Especially
considering the fine streetcar system and how much rail infastructure they
had (and still have).
>PRT is an
>interesting concept, but the big question is implementation.
That's going to be it's biggest problem until someone has the guts to try it
out (although Cincinati looks like a possiblity right now). It's a catch-22.
>
>Trolleys and trolley buses are quite nice. Dawson
Are both these electric? Another little debate in Mpls. is the Midtown
Greenway - a former train trench from the Mississippi river to the chain of
lakes) now being converted in a pedestrain/bikeway plus some sort of
transit. The city wants a busway. The Midtown Greenway colalition wants LRT,
and opposes buses because of the potiental polution buses would cause in the
trench. Trolley buses were metioned as a comprimise.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >If you look at the way cities used to work, families occupied
> >buildings that were both home and work. Generally, the lower
> >floors were used for whatever the family business, and the
> >family (with apprentices) lived in the upper floors. Commute
> >time, approximately zero. The reference design permits this
Yes! I think there is some impetus toward this kind of urban planning in the
US. Unfortunately this approach is being taken only with new developments;
it's
too bad that people could not live in the rooms above the shop in old towns.
There are buildings in which the upper floors are condemned but the ground
floors
are used as shops. What a waste.
I flinch when I see subdivisions spring up in what was countryside but I would
love
to see urban developers at work. If only builders could or would exploit the
city
buildings as they do rural areas!
Martha
>
>
> Trolleys and trolley buses are quite nice. Dawson
>
>
Are the trolley buses you have in mind electric buses attached to power and
ground
lines?
Martha
>>If you look at the way cities used to work, families occupied
>>buildings that were both home and work. Generally, the lower
>>floors were used for whatever the family business, and the
>>family (with apprentices) lived in the upper floors. Commute
>>time, approximately zero. The reference design permits this
>>kind of use, which also help create lively neighborhoods.
>Is this the way modern Europe works? And does this correlate to there lower
>degree of economic equality?
Oh, to a relatively minor degree, yes. But the western European
economies really aren't that different from the USA. My part
of Amsterdam still does have quite a few family-owned businesses,
and I believe that some of the owners do still live in the
upper floors, but the pattern is no longer nearly as common
as it once was, I believe.
As to the economic equity, while most of Europe is considerably
better than the USA in this regard, it relates mostly to much
higher levels of taxation on income (although capital gains and
capital itself are taxed very little or not at all). Most of
western Europe still has social welfare systems that work
reasonably well--true poverty is rare in the Netherlands, for
instance, and pretty much every legal resident of the country
has some form of health insurance.
###
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
Marcus Wrote:
>>Mr.Gaarder is also against some thing called "North Star" is this a Twin
>>Cities commuter rail project?
>Yep. The North Star is a commuter rail from St. Cloud (about 90 miles away)
>to DT Mpls.
That's a long trip for a commuter train, if it's St.Cloud then I guess part
of the route will be shared with that of Amtrak's Empire Builder
(Chicago-Seattle/Portland). Maybe this train should be partially
tagged/connected to or on to Amtrak's Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a up
coming higher speed train service to Chicago (80-110mph).
This URL is from WisDOT http://www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/planning.html
and this one is from MN-DOT http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/rail.htm .
>>On a historical note check out http://www.erha.org/plot2.htm and read the
>>Twin Cities section.
>I've been getting into local history lately on the area, and it's sad how
>much was destroyed and changed, mostly because of cars. Especially
>considering the fine streetcar system and how much rail infastructure they
>had (and still have).
Things can get pretty weird. Let's hope for the best that we have more
options for traveling in the future.
>>PRT is an interesting concept, but the big question is implementation.
>That's going to be it's biggest problem until someone has the guts to try
>it out (although Cincinati looks like a possiblity right now). It's a
>catch-22.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
>>Trolleys and trolley buses are quite nice. Dawson
>Are both these electric?
Yes they are.
>Another little debate in Mpls. is the Midtown
>Greenway - a former train trench from the Mississippi river to the chain of
>lakes)
Would this happen to be the former SOO or BN rail line right of way?
>now being converted in a pedestrain/bikeway plus some sort of
>transit. The city wants a busway. The Midtown Greenway colalition wants
>LRT, and opposes buses because of the potiental polution buses would cause
>in the trench. Trolley buses were metioned as a comprimise.
Rail or Busway, that's a good question, but it also leads a lot of other
questions. Capital costs, operating costs, type of equipment used,
distances, air/water pollution and etc. It's a complex situation that seems
to be best solved on a case by case nature.
Mr.Crawford would have more info.
Ron Dawson
Martha wrote:
>Marcus Nielson wrote:
>>Right now it's probably the hotest issue in Minnesota right now, at least
>>in the Metro area.
>Is the opposition grassroots or a few individuals who have businesses
>threatened by light rail?
I think it's a mixture of both which is heavy on the politics. Taxes and
spending seems to be a main item, with others it's some sort of a pseudo
libertarian thing and not to forget there's still highway/auto interests.
Last month in Phoenix there was a large referendum about raising a local
sales tax by 0.4% which passed with a 2-1 vote (the voter turn out some
thing like 24%). 2/3 of the budget will be spent on buses with the remaining
1/3 for LRT. Please check out http://www.lightrail.com/news/news03-29.htm .
>I know here in Michigan there would be a lot of caterwauling if anyone or
>anything threatened the sacrosanct auto industry. There are these stories
>that keep turning up, how various cities pulled out their electric trolley
>systems because it was part of the deal for GM to sell 'em really cheap
>buses. It feels true.
GM(National City Lines)and others did do a lot of damage, but there were
also things like certain taxes and operating rules that had a negative
effect on streetcars.
Also oddly enough Adtranz a maker of rail cars, locomotives and LRV's is a
subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler http://www.adtranz.com/adtranz/index_e.htm.
Like wise with Airbus http://www.dasa.com/dasa/index_e.htm.
>Martha
Ron Dawson
Marta wrote:
>> Trolleys and trolley buses are quite nice. Dawson
>Are the trolley buses you have in mind electric buses attached to power and
>ground lines?
There are positive and negative wires, but there is no ground that I know
of.
>Martha Dawson
To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
carfree_cities-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> Last month in Phoenix there was a large referendum about raising a local
> sales tax by 0.4% which passed with a 2-1 vote (the voter turn out some
> thing like 24%). 2/3 of the budget will be spent on buses with the remaining
> 1/3 for LRT. Please check out http://www.lightrail.com/news/news03-29.htm .
>
I would have hoped more for light rail, but detaching people from their
automobiles
will not be done in one swoop. At least it's mass transit. If there is some
permanence (that's why I prefer trolleys to buses) development along the
> Also oddly enough Adtranz a maker of rail cars, locomotives and LRV's is a
> subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler http://www.adtranz.com/adtranz/index_e.htm.
> Like wise with Airbus http://www.dasa.com/dasa/index_e.htm.
Maybe the auto companies see which way the wind is blowing. There are two
advertising and design directions that suggest that the auto companies realize
that
the Great American Commute is getting to a be drag, not to mention dangerous.
One, the increasing number of distracting doodads in the car, phone, computer,
entertainment systems. Anything to keep some driver from realizing that
sitting in
traffic taking lungful after lungful of exhaust, is no way to spend life.
Two, the design changes made for old people who drive. So if the dashboard
numbers
are bigger, so if mirrors are angled so you do not have to wrench your head
around to
glance back. Many young drivers have lousy vision, and sometimes stiff necks,
but
their licenses are not suspended for those reasons. These design changes "for
the
older driver" are part of denial that many otherwise capable people should not
be
driving.
When it is part of sensible, not to mention civilized, urban planning to have
car free
areas, a segment of the population will be able to relinquish their hold on
driving
privileges. They will probably be grateful.
Martha
>
> >Are the trolley buses you have in mind electric buses attached to power and
> >ground lines?
>
> There are positive and negative wires, but there is no ground that I know
> of.
Negative would do it. Path for the current. I was trying to get a fix on how
it
worked. The trolleys could be grounded to the metal rails, but an electric bus
on
rubber tires would have to be worked another way.
I find the use of trolley buses attractive because it would be relatively cheap
to
string the cables, the road is already there.
Several varieties of electric motor have already been put into service. The
problem is storage of power, but if that came off a line, problem solved.
Parts and repair for trolley buses would be available nearly everywhere. If
one
needed major repair, it could be taken offline and towed.
Electric power, point pollution is easier to control that roads full of exhaust.
It is a common political tactic to point at large expenditures and scream about
waste. This would certainly happen if a city found the political will to put
in
trolleys. The rails, the blocking of roads while the track was installed, etc.
would be grist for political opponents. But trolley buslines could be in in
days. I am ready to be corrected in this, the bikers in the group may jump all
over me for this, but it seems that a lane devoted to the exclusive use of
bicycles
and trolley buses might be helpful. If the lane serviced nothing but bikes and
regular predictable buses, it would be a lot safer than sharing the road with
autos.
If a trolley busline was getting a lot of business then the more permanent rails
and trolleys could be put in. It's good practice to find out whether there is
a
market for a service. Trolley buses would be the toe in the water.
I am new to this board but I sense some urgency here. The time is ripe for a
change to mass transit. Once it was rare to lease a car, but now, autos have
become so expensive, leasing is for some families, the only way to have new
(reliable) transportation. It is something to point out if you are in a town
meeting discussing the subject. Ask how many people lease cars. And how many
did ten years ago.
Autos are getting way too expensive in more ways than one.
Martha
I remember trolley buses in LA--very quiet, but subject to the same traffic
delays and lurching, etc, as regular buses. Rail is smoother and more
mechanically efficient, and with grade separation not as subject to
traffic.
If I recall correctly (I was very young at the time), annoyance at the dual
overhead wires of the trolley buses was a major excuse for removing them.
Richard
--
Richard Risemberg
editor@...
Living Room Urban Ecology Web Magazine
http://living-room.org
>> >Are the trolley buses you have in mind electric buses attached to power and
>> >ground lines?
>>
>> There are positive and negative wires, but there is no ground that I know
>> of.
In the case of trolleys, there's one overhead "hot" conductor. The
rails serve as the return path (at ground potential, of course).
>Negative would do it. Path for the current. I was trying to get a fix on
how it
>worked. The trolleys could be grounded to the metal rails, but an electric
bus on
>rubber tires would have to be worked another way.
Yes, two conductors are always required, and the amount of
hardware that has to be installed up in the air is quite
considerable. Also, it is quite common for one (or both!)
trolley poles to come off the wire, which results in a
delay while the driver tries to get the pole back on the
wire. This sometimes takes a fair bit of time.
>I find the use of trolley buses attractive because it would be relatively cheap
to
>string the cables, the road is already there.
On the other hand, the cost for the overhead wires is more
than double that for a trolley because of the complication
of wires having to cross where routes join and diverge.
>Several varieties of electric motor have already been put into service. The
>problem is storage of power, but if that came off a line, problem solved.
As far as I am aware, no in-service system has used storage
(there are some tests with flywheels and batteries, I belive).
Fuel cells would solve most of the problem, and some fuel-cell
buses are under test.
>Parts and repair for trolley buses would be available nearly everywhere. If
one
>needed major repair, it could be taken offline and towed.
These buses are highly reliable. The main components are
so long-lived that they are often set under a new coach
body after 20 or so years.
>I am ready to be corrected in this, the bikers in the group may jump all
>over me for this, but it seems that a lane devoted to the exclusive use of
bicycles
>and trolley buses might be helpful. If the lane serviced nothing but bikes
and
>regular predictable buses, it would be a lot safer than sharing the road with
>autos.
My philosophy is this:
Allocate space first to public transport (a la Zurich), so
there are never any traffic-related delals.
Make sure bikes get their own space (the speed differentials
mean that the two kinds of traffic do not mix well).
What's left over can go to the cars.
###
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
>Rail or Busway, that's a good question, but it also leads a lot of other
>questions. Capital costs, operating costs, type of equipment used,
>distances, air/water pollution and etc. It's a complex situation that seems
>to be best solved on a case by case nature.
>Mr.Crawford would have more info.
Actually, I don't have a lot of hard information on costs.
They're terribly specific to the local situation and really
require engineering assessment for each case.
Rules of thumb:
New underground metro systems in existing urban areas
cost roughly as much per mile as new urban freeways.
As far as I am aware, nobody has ever built a new metro
in a greenfield area. The costs should be far lower than
in built-up areas, however. That's why I've dared to
propose their use in new carfree cities. (The big problem
in existing cities is working around all the existing
infrastructure.) Fare-free systems can be built closer
to the surface (no fare-pay mezzanine), and so should
be a lot cheaper to build.
LRVs are competitive with buses in any circumstance
where the traffic is heavy enough to require frequent
service (a modern tram can carry easily twice as many
people as an articulated bus, so labor costs are less
per rider).
People won't switch from cars to buses, but they will
switch from cars to electrically-powered rail systems.
"Nobody with a choice ever took a bus anywhere."
###
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
What would be a very rough projected cost of building a carfree city from
scratch, including the cost of land?
Peace, love, and information,
David Schneider-Joseph
Mr.Risemberg wrote:
>I remember trolley buses in LA--very quiet, but subject to the same traffic
>delays and lurching, etc, as regular buses. Rail is smoother and more
>mechanically efficient, and with grade separation not as subject to
>traffic.
Richard have you ever seen this URL http://www.erha.org/latl.htm before?
This might bring back some memories of LA and once it had a fairly extensive
interurban rail system http://www.erha.org/pesystem.htm.
>If I recall correctly (I was very young at the time), annoyance at the dual
>overhead wires of the trolley buses was a major excuse for removing them.
In Montreal one of the reasons(excuses) to get rid of the trams and trolley
buses was visual pollution of the lines.
>Richard Ron Dawson
Mr.Crawford wrote:
>LRVs are competitive with buses in any circumstance
>where the traffic is heavy enough to require frequent
>service (a modern tram can carry easily twice as many
>people as an articulated bus, so labor costs are less
>per rider).
In Montreal on our Duex-Montangne EMU(Electric Multiple Unit) commuter line,
a ten car(5 married pairs) train can handle 900(seated) to 1200(standing
room) people with a crew of two. Rolling stock information can be found at
the following URL http://www.transportation.bombardier.com/htmen/A2H.htm.
Hey I rode them today. During off peak periods trains can be 4,6 or 8 cars
long.
Montreal commuter trains work on the honour system and time to time fare
inspectors come around. A friend of mine calls the inspectors "POP
COPs",(POP being for "Proof of Payment").
For a map of the line look at http://www.amt.qc.ca/tc/train/plan.asp. I live
near the Bois-Franc station and can see the pantographs from my kitchen
window. The two other commuter lines use Diesel-Electric trains.
Ron Dawson
Richard Risemberg wrote:
> I remember trolley buses in LA--very quiet, but subject to the same traffic
delays and lurching, etc, as regular buses. Rail is smoother and more
mechanically efficient, and with grade separation not as subject to
> traffic.
Delays and lurching yes, there is no reason that would change. But there is a
huge advantage over driving a car -- your attention does not have to be on the
road, and with mobile computing, including e-books, you may
even enjoy the time enroute in a trolley bus, perhaps you may even get work
done.
>
>
> If I recall correctly (I was very young at the time), annoyance at the dual
overhead wires of the trolley buses was a major excuse for removing them.
I am sure that the dual overhead wires could be contained in one package so that
the current would go from one wire to the trolley's motor, then to the negative
line that could be in the same cable though insulated
from the other wire.
What attracts me to trolley buses is that you could do it on a tiny scale at
first, just the rounds of a car free condo/apartment complex out to the bus
stop. If there was demand for it to go further, it could be made
to do so within weeks.
Many of the interstates have been built with huge medians between the opposite
lanes. I am pretty sure this was to accomodate future growth. It seems a
natural place for light rail or even trolleys which around the
teens and 20s used to link towns. Imagine, sitting by the window on a trolley,
your lap top or ebook in hand, favorite beverage in a cooler in your knapsack,
and you take a sip now and then as you pass a traffic jam,
stop and go for miles, but you don't have to look up from the book you are
reading or the DVD movie you are playing in your laptop or worry about your BAC
because you are not driving.
Once upon a time, the image of the car on the road in the US was of freedom, a
latter day cowboy. Now it's a cattle drive, and the autos are the cattle.
Martha
>
> My philosophy is this:
>
> Allocate space first to public transport (a la Zurich), so
> there are never any traffic-related delals.
>
> Make sure bikes get their own space (the speed differentials
> mean that the two kinds of traffic do not mix well).
>
> What's left over can go to the cars.
I like that!
Martha
> People won't switch from cars to buses, but they will
> switch from cars to electrically-powered rail systems.
>
> "Nobody with a choice ever took a bus anywhere."
>
I think the image of public transportation as a losers' way is a result of auto
company PR. You say city bus to someone and they conjure up images of having
some
creep walk through an empty bus to sit beside him and then throw up on the
floor.
Buses could be classic pay your fare and get on or subscription that could be a
lot
more luxurious and take scenic routes.
Jumping now to another topic under the same subject -- the switching as an
electrical trolley bus comes to a fork in the road and chooses one road. In
plants for years, there has been an overhead mimic of the railroad switching
system. For the point of switching the cable could be rigid and radio
switched,
so the cable would follow one route or the other.
Martha
> What would be a very rough projected cost of building a carfree city from
> scratch, including the cost of land?
Think of a high end development, and then the cost of the over head lines for a
bus
trolley. It would be a moderate add on to what developers are doing already.
But developers do what they do with borrowed money, and their plans for the
money
are monitored.
I think a far sighted or eccentric developer would be the best hope at this
point. There is some guy down in Florida who stipulated that nothing but
indigenous plants be grown in his subdivision. That meant no lawns.
Sacrilege!
But people got used to the idea or bought elsewhere, and you have this
interesting
gothic effect of neo Victorian houses and trees and tufts of grass. People who
can write contracts on such a large scale are the best hope now.
I think a good approach for tourist towns, whatever their attraction would be to
have a luxury circuit trolley or trolley bus, maybe even a double decker. A
long
enough route so you could make an evening of it, just sight seeing. I'll bet
stores along the route would do well. Maybe you could even do a sort of dinner
cruise thing.
Martha
> In Montreal one of the reasons(excuses) to get rid of the trams and trolley
> buses was visual pollution of the lines.
Well, the lines can be condense into what appearsto be one line, and the visual
pollution is small beside the chemical and noise pollution of all those
combustion
engines.
Martha
>
>
> In Montreal on our Duex-Montangne EMU(Electric Multiple Unit) commuter line,
> a ten car(5 married pairs) train can handle 900(seated) to 1200(standing
> room) people with a crew of two. Rolling stock information can be found at
> the following URL http://www.transportation.bombardier.com/htmen/A2H.htm.
> Hey I rode them today. During off peak periods trains can be 4,6 or 8 cars
> long.
> Montreal commuter trains work on the honour system and time to time fare
> inspectors come around. A friend of mine calls the inspectors "POP
> COPs",(POP being for "Proof of Payment").
> For a map of the line look at http://www.amt.qc.ca/tc/train/plan.asp. I live
> near the Bois-Franc station and can see the pantographs from my kitchen
> window. The two other commuter lines use Diesel-Electric trains.
>
Like it or not, biometrics are here to stay, and your trolley fare may be linked
to the times
you get your irises or fingerprints scanned on your way aboard.
Martha
Martha wrote:
>I think the image of public transportation as a losers' way is a result of
>auto company PR.
Not long ago (1998 or 1999) Ford ran an ad campaign called "bye, bye, bus".
Dawson
Now this would be fantastic!
Mr.Burridge wrote:
>
>Apr. 06, 2000 (States via COMTEX) via NewsEdge Corporation - WASHINGTON,
>April 5 - A plan to extend high-speed train service from Boston to
>Montreal
>that could cut in half commute times for New Hampshire and Vermont
>residents
>who drive to Boston is being pushed by New England lawmakers. The
>legislators, including Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci and both of the
>state's US senators, want to extend the 110 mile-per-hour train service
>already planned between Boston and New York, through Lowell, Nashua,
>Manchester, Concord, Montpelier, Burlington, to Montreal. An April 4
>letter
>from Vermont Senator Jim M. Jeffords to President Clinton and US
>Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater argued that the heavily-populated
>area has become congested, and urged them to upgrade tracks along the
>330-mile stretch between Boston and Montreal with federal highway funds.
Getting access to the US federal "highway slush fund" would be great!
>"Our population density and a 150 percent increase in travel throughout
>New
>England has combined to overwhelm traditional modes of transportation in
>our
>region," the letter said. The rail would also allow passengers to use the
>Manchester airport as an alternative to Logan Airport. "Boston's Logan
>Airport, the hub of the region's air traffic and one of the main gateways
>for travelers to northern New England, is among the nation's busiest,"
>the
>letter said. The proposed extension would allow residents in southern New
>Hampshire to cut their driving commute times to downtown Boston -- about
>four hours -- down to two hours, said Jeffords' legislative director Ken
>Connolly. Passengers would be able to reach Montreal in three hours.
>There
>is currently no passenger train service between Massachusetts and Canada.
>The project would cost roughly $500 million, paid under 1998 legislation
>calling for the expansion of high-speed rail service around the country.
>The
>project would entail [re]building new tracks between Concord and White
River
>Junction, Vermont, a stretch that currently lacks any service. "High
>speed
>rail service between Boston and Burlington will bring significant
>economic
>and transportation benefits through New England,"
>
>Senator Edward Kennedy said Wednesday."We have already made progress in
>linking Boston to New York City, and this proposal is an important
>expansion
>of that effort." Amtrak, whose Northeast Direct train from Boston to New
>York has been delayed until later this year, would operate the new line.
>Representatives James McGovern of Worcester, and Martin Meehan of
>
>Lowell, with Senator Robert C.Smith and Representative Charles Bass, both
>Republicans of New Hampshire, and Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders,
>also
>signed the letter.
>
>By Alex Canizares
[Could this actually be building steam!?-GB]
Another large problem to deal with is that 8 mile, $13 billion hole in the
ground of Boston called Interstate-93!
Dawson
David Schneider-Joseph raised some questions about costs:
>What would be a very rough projected cost of building a carfree city from
>scratch, including the cost of land?
I don't have hard figures on this, but consider this:
The amount of land required to provides homes and workplaces
to a million people living in a carfree city is very roughly
the same as for an auto-centric, sprawling development. However,
in a carfree city based on the reference design, more than 80%
of the land can remain in open space uses.
Because the human uses are concentrated, the aggregate length of
utility runs is far shorter, probably on the order of 30% of
what is required for sprawl development.
The amount of paved area is only about 30% of the developed area,
or about 6% of the enitre site. It's hard to come by reliable
figures for sprawl development, but the comparable number would
be over 25% and perhaps much more. (An oft-cited figure of
70% of land in downtown areas being devoted to the automobile,
and thus paved, does not appear to have a sound research basis.
Clearly, this figure is reached in some areas, such as the
heart of Houston, but the figure for a metropolitan area as
a whole is surely far lower.)
The cost of the buildings themselves should be quite reasonable.
The four-story buildings proposed do not require elevators
and can use relatively simple construction techniques except
in earthquake-prone areas, where all masonry construction must
be thoroughly reinforced.
The additional cost, of course, is the construction of the
public transport system. Given that metros cost very roughly
the same amount per mile as urban freeways, and given that
the routes are as short as reasonably possible, the construction
cost of the inter-district transport system should be comparable
with a freeway-based system. The cost of the rolling stock
would be much lower than the cost of the reequired number of
cars and buses for auto-centric development. Rail rolling stock
often lasts as long as 50 years, but 20 years is really stretching
it for cars and buses.
Energy costs for operating the transport system should be much
lower than for auto-centric transport.
The one uncertainty in this picture is the freight delivery
system, which has never before been built, although all of
the necessary components are relatively standard. It would
surely be fairly expensive (perhaps on the order of the
cost of the metro), but given the total picture, these
costs would be moderate.
I belive that one of the next steps in moving towards carfree
cities is to develop a sophisticated computer simulation of
both auto-centric and carfree cities, so that these questions
could be answered with some precision.
###
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
>In Montreal on our Duex-Montangne EMU(Electric Multiple Unit) commuter line,
>a ten car(5 married pairs) train can handle 900(seated) to 1200(standing
>room) people with a crew of two. Rolling stock information can be found at
>the following URL http://www.transportation.bombardier.com/htmen/A2H.htm.
>Hey I rode them today. During off peak periods trains can be 4,6 or 8 cars
>long.
>Montreal commuter trains work on the honour system and time to time fare
>inspectors come around. A friend of mine calls the inspectors "POP
>COPs",(POP being for "Proof of Payment").
>For a map of the line look at http://www.amt.qc.ca/tc/train/plan.asp. I live
>near the Bois-Franc station and can see the pantographs from my kitchen
>window. The two other commuter lines use Diesel-Electric trains.
> Ron Dawson
>
I used to ride the electrics when I lived in the Town of Mount Royal.
They provided very rapid, convenient access to downtown Montreal.
It's reassuring to know that they're still running.
###
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
Mr.Crawford wrote:
>I used to ride the electrics when I lived in the Town of Mount Royal.
>They provided very rapid, convenient access to downtown Montreal.
>It's reassuring to know that they're still running.
Wow, I had no idea that you used to live in TMR (Town of Mount Royal). I
live just 4 miles down the line in Ville St.Laurent. TMR is a great example
of a railroad suburb, in that all the major streets lead to the train
station, kind of like the letter X.
From 1993 to 1995 the line between Montreal and Duex-Montangne was totally
renovated for $300(CDN)million. New track, new catenary, new stations and
new rolling stock. Before the track was 100lb joint rail, now it is 115lb
welded rail with 65mph track conditions, the catenary is now at 25Kv A.C.
instead of the 3Kv D.C. that it use to be, at stations we have new platforms
and better lighting. The Boxcab type locomotives from the 1920's, the
heavyweight coaches from the 1940's and even the EMU cars from the 1950's
were all retired. Replaced by Bombardier MR-90s (some of the older equipment
has found new homes on tourist lines and at various museums).
Mr.Crawford and others, I think you will enjoy this awesome URL done by Marc
Dufour http://www.emdx.qc.ca/rail/DeuxMontagnes/index.html . Here is an
other URL, this time in English http://home.swipnet.se/ricard/tmr.html .
Till later,Ron Dawson
Unfortunately, you're right. More roads = more traffic, and
ultimately more congestion. In fact, there is a direct correlation
between the volume of traffic and the amount of paved roads.
The obvious answer is to prvide mass-transit systems such as subways
or surface railways. These are, however, relatively expensive
options, which is why roads tend to be built instead.
You say that you have two rivers flowing through the city, one
through the most congested parts of town. Rivers are not ideal for
carrying passengers due to the slow speed of boats, but freight is a
different matter. You might try taking freight off the roads and onto
the water where possible, the spare road capacity could then be set
aside for public transport.
Integrated river / rail terminals could also provide a link into the
national rail system, enabling commerce to operate more easily.
If you do settle on a subway system, then cut and fill would be the
cheapest option for you to implement. Basically, this involves
digging a large trench, lining the floor and sides with reinforced
concrete, laying the rails and putting the lid on. Earth is then used
to fill the hole so that it's flush with the street.
India does have a good deal of rail expertise, so I'm sure you'll get
the problem licked sooner or later - just bear in mind the lessons of
the traffic jammed cities of the US and Europe.
J.H. Crawford tells us that "Nobody with a choice ever took a bus anywhere."
I have a bit of a problem with that one. Now, while that's what they say in
Memphis and Phoenix, I can I am sure put together a list of more than 500
cities in Europe in which there are a lot of people who a lot of the time
will argue differently.
Let me tackle that in a somewhat more aggressive way, if only to keep things
warmed up here. The goal of a sustainable transportation system is to piece
together a wide spectrum of technologies and services that offer high
quality options to single driver car travel in cities. Now as it happens, a
very significant part of the strategy is to render such travel (i.e., cars
thus used) just that much more difficult and less possible each year: a
gradual shift which gives people time to adjust to a new, better and more
sustainable transportation configuration.
Buses, minibuses, vans, articulated buses and other wheeled vehicles
carrying groups of people who are pleased to be there is a significant part
of the big picture. So why knock them? I am puzzled. Is there something
here that I have not understood?
Eric Britton
ecopl@n ___ technology, economy, society ___
Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France
Eric.Britton@... URL www.ecoplan.org
Voice/Videoconference +331.4441.6340 (1-4)
Voicemail/Fax hotline: Europe +331 5301 2896
Voicemail/Fax hotline: North America +1 888 522 6419 (toll free)
Mr.Britton wrote:
>J.H. Crawford tells us that "Nobody with a choice ever took a bus
>anywhere."
>I have a bit of a problem with that one. Now, while that's what they say in
>Memphis and Phoenix, I can I am sure put together a list of more than 500
>cities in Europe in which there are a lot of people who a lot of the time
>will argue differently.
>Let me tackle that in a somewhat more aggressive way, if only to keep
>things warmed up here. The goal of a sustainable transportation system is
>to piece together a wide spectrum of technologies and services that offer
>high quality options to single driver car travel in cities. Now as it
>happens, a very significant part of the strategy is to render such travel
>(i.e., cars thus used) just that much more difficult and less possible each
>year: a gradual shift which gives people time to adjust to a new, better
>and more sustainable transportation configuration.
>Buses, minibuses, vans, articulated buses and other wheeled vehicles
>carrying groups of people who are pleased to be there is a significant part
>of the big picture. So why knock them? I am puzzled. Is there something
>here that I have not understood?
Mr Britton, I agree with you, but I think Mr.Crawford was using some what of
a blanket statement, in regards to the US experience. I personally think
buses are an important part of a public transport network. When one
considers what kind buses some places operate in the USA, some times it can
be understandable. http://www.transit-rider.com/bus/capre.cfm
Nova LFS, Ron Dawson
Send Email
