Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Monday Market

Expand Messages
  • Roy Preston
    Scenario: A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
      Scenario:

      A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
      traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.

      Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
      double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
      turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
      10 miles away. (700 buses per day)

      The Council and instigators of the market are now coming under fire from
      the bus company which has been inconvenienced by the closure and who claim,
      on emotive grounds, that their elderly passengers are unable to walk the
      extra 200-yards to the end of the High Street on the day of road closure
      (half-a-dozen passengers at the most!), and are threatening legal action.

      Question:

      Apart from abandoning the Monday road closure, which seems very likely
      under the circumstances, how would one defend the road closure without
      appearing to be non-caring?

      Roy P(leased to hear any suggestions?)
    • Simon Baddeley
      Get shopmobility involved - meeting people as they alight or giving notice of their services near the point where bus passengers alight and board at the
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
        Get "shopmobility" involved - meeting people as they alight or giving notice
        of their services near the point where bus passengers alight and board at
        the point where pedestrianisation starts. In Inverness the shopmobility
        service is right by a carpark exit, taxi/car drop-off pick up point and bus
        stop.

        With the passenger numbers you mention, I imagine the bus company is feeling
        pretty threatened already. Surely management could be persuaded to
        negotiate. If they have been receiving complaints from their passengers they
        have to be able to offer something back.

        Just an idea. I hope the council etc don't cave in - but transport issues
        are characteristically full of stake holders frequently in win-lose
        situations. How can this situation become win-win?

        Simon


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Roy Preston <preston@...>
        To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:48 PM
        Subject: [carfree_cities] Monday Market


        > Scenario:
        >
        > A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
        > traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.
        >
        > Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
        > double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
        > turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
        > 10 miles away. (700 buses per day)
        >
        > The Council and instigators of the market are now coming under fire from
        > the bus company which has been inconvenienced by the closure and who
        claim,
        > on emotive grounds, that their elderly passengers are unable to walk the
        > extra 200-yards to the end of the High Street on the day of road closure
        > (half-a-dozen passengers at the most!), and are threatening legal action.
        >
        > Question:
        >
        > Apart from abandoning the Monday road closure, which seems very likely
        > under the circumstances, how would one defend the road closure without
        > appearing to be non-caring?
        >
      • T. J. Binkley
        ... How about suggesting that the market vendors all chip in a few bucks to hire a thick-calved college student to run a pedicab back and forth during the
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
          >The Council and instigators of the market are now coming under fire from
          >the bus company which has been inconvenienced by the closure and who claim,
          >on emotive grounds, that their elderly passengers are unable to walk the
          >extra 200-yards to the end of the High Street on the day of road closure
          >(half-a-dozen passengers at the most!), and are threatening legal action.
          >
          >Question:
          >
          >Apart from abandoning the Monday road closure, which seems very likely
          >under the circumstances, how would one defend the road closure without
          >appearing to be non-caring?

          How about suggesting that the market vendors all chip in a few bucks to
          hire a thick-calved college student to run a pedicab back and forth during
          the "closure".
        • Louis-Luc
          How about a voluntary (or hired by transit company) pedicab driver, or buggy puller person, that will take one of the (half dozen) elderly, or disable people
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
            How about a voluntary (or hired by transit company) pedicab driver, or buggy
            puller person, that will take one of the (half dozen) elderly, or disable
            people through the carfree zone to the new bus stop location. If such
            passenger are rare, the voluntary/hired person could be a shop tenant
            concurrently. One would need a doctor note to be granted a pass for this
            service (so it is not overused).

            Once this is popular, it becomes easier to repulse motor traffic (even
            buses) farther away from the activity zones.

            Louis-Luc

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Roy Preston [mailto:preston@...]
            > Sent: 7 août, 2001 16:48
            > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [carfree_cities] Monday Market
            >
            >
            > Scenario:
            >
            > A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
            > traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.
            >
            > Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
            > double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
            > turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
            > 10 miles away. (700 buses per day)
            >
            > The Council and instigators of the market are now coming under fire from
            > the bus company which has been inconvenienced by the closure and
            > who claim,
            > on emotive grounds, that their elderly passengers are unable to walk the
            > extra 200-yards to the end of the High Street on the day of road closure
            > (half-a-dozen passengers at the most!), and are threatening legal action.
            >
            > Question:
            >
            > Apart from abandoning the Monday road closure, which seems very likely
            > under the circumstances, how would one defend the road closure without
            > appearing to be non-caring?
            >
            > Roy P(leased to hear any suggestions?)
            >
            >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
            > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • Louis-Luc
            We had the same idea! (I wrote my followup before reading yours). Cheers. Louis-Luc
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
              We had the same idea!
              (I wrote my followup before reading yours).

              Cheers.
              Louis-Luc
              > How about suggesting that the market vendors all chip in a few bucks to
              > hire a thick-calved college student to run a pedicab back and
              > forth during
              > the "closure".
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
              > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • Simon Baddeley
              Is this your town? Is this the notorious Christchurch where local politicians are so obtuse about the damage done by fossil fuelled traffic to local quality of
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                Is this your town? Is this the notorious Christchurch where local
                politicians are so obtuse about the damage done by fossil fuelled traffic to
                local quality of life? If so then at least some progress is being made even
                if it brings another problems with it.

                S


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Roy Preston <preston@...>
                To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:48 PM
                Subject: [carfree_cities] Monday Market


                Scenario:

                A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
                traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.

                Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
                double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
                turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
                10 miles away. (700 buses per day)
              • J.H. Crawford
                ... ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                  Simon Baddeley said:

                  >A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
                  >traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.
                  >
                  >Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
                  >double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
                  >turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
                  >10 miles away. (700 buses per day)

                  ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over
                  buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
                  passengers that they don't have to run every minute or two. Metros, of
                  course, are out of sight and out of mind.



                  -- ### --

                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  postmaster@... Carfree.com
                • Boileau,Pierre [NCR]
                  Hello Joel, I agree about the metros. I also have to say that I ve finally read the carfree cities bible and I m am amazed by the amount of depth that the
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                    Hello Joel,

                    I agree about the metros. I also have to say that I've finally read the
                    carfree cities bible and I'm am amazed by the amount of depth that the
                    reference design contains. One question I had was how you proposed to deal
                    with construction equipment (mostly fossil fuel powered) during the
                    modifications to existing cities which would be necessary to make them
                    carfree.

                    Many thanks

                    Pierre.

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: J.H. Crawford [mailto:postmaster@...]
                    Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:10 AM
                    To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Monday Market



                    Simon Baddeley said:

                    >A small market town in England has, at last, closed the High Street to
                    >traffic for one day to hold a Monday market. It is hugely successful.
                    >
                    >Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
                    >double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
                    >turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
                    >10 miles away. (700 buses per day)

                    ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over
                    buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
                    passengers that they don't have to run every minute or two. Metros, of
                    course, are out of sight and out of mind.



                    -- ### --

                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                    postmaster@... Carfree.com


                    To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Alex Farran
                    ... Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it s going to be expensive to build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what s wrong with
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                      "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello Joel,
                      >
                      > I agree about the metros. I also have to say that I've finally read the
                      > carfree cities bible and I'm am amazed by the amount of depth that the
                      > reference design contains. One question I had was how you proposed to deal
                      > with construction equipment (mostly fossil fuel powered) during the
                      > modifications to existing cities which would be necessary to make them
                      > carfree.
                      >
                      > Many thanks
                      >
                      > Pierre.
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      >
                      > ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over
                      > buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
                      > passengers that they don't have to run every minute or two. Metros, of
                      > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
                      >

                      Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be expensive to
                      build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what's wrong with
                      running every minute or two? Any form of public transport ought to run every
                      10-15 minutes for maximum convenience. Obviously on very busy routes a bus
                      might not be the best choice of vehicle, but that doesn't seem to be the case
                      in the market day example, where the bus was almost empty. Some kind of cab
                      service would be the best solution in this case.

                      It's not really a case of favouring one form of transport over the other, but
                      of choosing the best tool for the job. A metro system is heavily disadvanted
                      by it's cost however, when similar levels of service can be acheived with a
                      good bus-lane network.

                      Anyway the important thing is the fact that the street was closed to all motor
                      traffic. The major disruption and danger comes from cars not buses.
                      --
                      __o
                      _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                      (*)/(*)
                      Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                    • Richard Risemberg
                      ... Metros, of ... Nothing, when it s underground so that the streets are free for people on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                        Alex Farran wrote:
                        >
                        > "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
                        Metros, of
                        > > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
                        > >
                        >
                        > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be expensive to
                        > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what's wrong with
                        > running every minute or two?

                        Nothing, when it's underground so that the streets are free for people
                        on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
                        travel, are what permit a city to establish a vibrant social commerce
                        among its denizens, and are good for business too, as people in cars
                        don't window shop. Having large vehicles running the streets turns them
                        back into social deserts (though tram traffic doesn't upset sidewalk
                        life so much, at least). Metros are worth the cost, and only metros
                        have enough capacity to make large carfree cities possible. (And they
                        don't cost any more to build than freeways/motorways.)

                        Richard
                        --
                        Richard Risemberg
                        http://www.living-room.org
                        http://www.newcolonist.com

                        "Life is complicated and not for the timid."
                        Garrison Keillor
                      • J.H. Crawford
                        ... This is what it s all about. ... Relatively, that s correct. They re still large & dangerous, and most of them make quite a lot of noise (although the old
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                          Rick continued:

                          >Nothing, when it's underground so that the streets are free for people
                          >on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
                          >travel, are what permit a city to establish a vibrant social commerce
                          >among its denizens, and are good for business too, as people in cars
                          >don't window shop. Having large vehicles running the streets turns them
                          >back into social deserts...

                          This is what it's all about.

                          >(though tram traffic doesn't upset sidewalk
                          >life so much, at least).

                          Relatively, that's correct. They're still large & dangerous, and
                          most of them make quite a lot of noise (although the old PCC cars,
                          from 1935, when maintained in good order are very quiet).

                          >Metros are worth the cost, and only metros
                          >have enough capacity to make large carfree cities possible.

                          Trams may see quite wide application in the conversion of existing,
                          medium-sized cities to carfree cities; most cities will make at
                          least some use of trams in the less dense, outlying districts.

                          >(And they
                          >don't cost any more to build than freeways/motorways.)

                          Less, probably, certainly any time that right-of-way acquisition
                          costs are involved. And they have about 7 times the passenger
                          capacity (compared to a 3-lane highway).



                          -- ### --

                          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                          postmaster@... Carfree.com
                        • J.H. Crawford
                          ... In many cases, the only reasonable way to proceed is to allow conventiona construction equipment to have access (although it s possible to at least make
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                            Pierre Boileau said:

                            >I also have to say that I've finally read the
                            >carfree cities bible and I'm am amazed by the amount of depth that the
                            >reference design contains. One question I had was how you proposed to deal
                            >with construction equipment (mostly fossil fuel powered) during the
                            >modifications to existing cities which would be necessary to make them
                            >carfree.

                            In many cases, the only reasonable way to proceed is to allow
                            conventiona construction equipment to have access (although it's
                            possible to at least make this stuff much quieter than is
                            usually the case, as was done with San Francisco's garbage trucks
                            when it was decided to collect during night hours only).

                            Much material delivery can be done with metro-freight, once that
                            system is operational, saving both expense and aggravation for
                            street users.

                            There's no getting around the fact that construction is disruptive,
                            and that will be true in carfree cities as well. Best practice is
                            to use traditional, relatively small, 4- and 5-story buildings,
                            which can be rennovated to nearly any use, rather than being
                            demolished and reconstructed. Even renovation can be aggravating
                            (there's an awful lot of it going on in Amsterdam now, and it's
                            a pain), but it's not as bad as demolition and new construction.

                            I sure wish somebody would find a replacement for grinders,
                            hammer drills, and orbital sanders (the latter often being
                            used for hours on end).



                            -- ### --

                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                            postmaster@... Carfree.com
                          • Alex Farran
                            ... That seems like an argument for routing all non-pedestrian traffic underground. Does every road have to be pedestrianised? There will always be traffic
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                              Richard Risemberg wrote:
                              >
                              > Alex Farran wrote:
                              > >
                              > > "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
                              > Metros, of
                              > > > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be expensive to
                              > > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what's wrong with
                              > > running every minute or two?
                              >
                              > Nothing, when it's underground so that the streets are free for people
                              > on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
                              > travel, are what permit a city to establish a vibrant social commerce
                              > among its denizens, and are good for business too, as people in cars
                              > don't window shop.

                              That seems like an argument for routing all non-pedestrian traffic
                              underground. Does every road have to be pedestrianised? There will always be
                              traffic on the roads be it car, bus or bike. By far the most disruptive and
                              wasteful form of transport at the moment is the personal car. Once you've
                              removed/reduced that a lot more space becomes available for other purposes.

                              > (And they
                              > don't cost any more to build than freeways/motorways.)

                              For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They still cost
                              much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible. A metro like system
                              implemented with buses, as in the Curitaba example (
                              http://brt.volpe.dot.gov/issues/pt3.html ) produces many of the benefits of a
                              subway for a fraction of the cost. Cost does matter and subways are
                              expensive.


                              --
                              __o
                              _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                              (*)/(*)
                              Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                            • Philip D Riggs
                              ... Moscow subways run every minute during rush hour and every three minutes at non-peak hours. The number of people the Moscow system transports is simply
                              Message 14 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                > > > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be
                                > expensive to
                                > > > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And
                                > what's wrong with
                                > > > running every minute or two?
                                > >
                                Moscow subways run every minute during rush hour and every three minutes
                                at non-peak hours. The number of people the Moscow system transports is
                                simply incredible. Be at a station in the morning when people are going
                                to work and be amazed. And the Paris system to me demonstrates that
                                underground businesses provided convenient shopping during travel. Rents
                                from these shops could be used to offset the metro cost. Look into the
                                lucrative mall rentals where the draw is the large department store. The
                                draw for these underground shopping centers is neccessary transport. Two
                                positives, replace international corporate stores with locally owned
                                shops and support public transportation.


                                > > (And they
                                > > don't cost any more to build than freeways/motorways.)
                                >
                                > For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They
                                > still cost
                                > much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible. A metro like
                                > system
                                > implemented with buses, as in the Curitaba example (
                                > http://brt.volpe.dot.gov/issues/pt3.html ) produces many of the
                                > benefits of a
                                > subway for a fraction of the cost. Cost does matter and subways
                                > are
                                > expensive.
                                >
                                Again there are ways to offset the cost. And people will be willing to
                                pay for comfort and speed. In my opinion busses will never be able to
                                acheive the acceleration and travel speed of a rail system, and I feel
                                much safer and comfortable on a train than a bus. Flexibility is only
                                needed when the city is not properly planned for growth.

                                *******************************
                                Philip Riggs
                                Colorado State University
                                Fort Collins, Colorado
                              • Alex Farran
                                ... I think buses have an image problem, possibly because of the way bus systems have been implemented. They are transport for people who can t afford cars.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                  Philip D Riggs wrote:

                                  > Again there are ways to offset the cost. And people will be willing to
                                  > pay for comfort and speed. In my opinion busses will never be able to
                                  > acheive the acceleration and travel speed of a rail system, and I feel
                                  > much safer and comfortable on a train than a bus. Flexibility is only
                                  > needed when the city is not properly planned for growth.
                                  >
                                  I think buses have an image problem, possibly because of the way bus systems
                                  have been implemented. They are transport for people who can't afford cars.
                                  Rail transport has attached to it certain assumptions such as the frequency of
                                  stops, speed, priority and maybe even a certain quality of service. Why not
                                  transfer these aspects of rail transport to a bus transportation system?
                                  Rubber is certainly capable of being just as comfortable as rail, more so in
                                  the case of most private cars. I know from firsthand experience of one of
                                  Britain's privatised rail operators (Connex) that rail isn't necessarily
                                  comfortable.

                                  --
                                  __o
                                  _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                                  (*)/(*)
                                  Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                                • J.H. Crawford
                                  ... Anything that s popularly known as a loser cruiser has an image problem, big time. While it s possible to imagine a number of fixes to buses (a la
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                    Alex Farren responded:

                                    >I think buses have an image problem, possibly because of the way bus systems
                                    >have been implemented. They are transport for people who can't afford cars.
                                    >Rail transport has attached to it certain assumptions such as the frequency of
                                    >stops, speed, priority and maybe even a certain quality of service. Why not
                                    >transfer these aspects of rail transport to a bus transportation system?
                                    >Rubber is certainly capable of being just as comfortable as rail, more so in
                                    >the case of most private cars. I know from firsthand experience of one of
                                    >Britain's privatised rail operators (Connex) that rail isn't necessarily
                                    >comfortable.

                                    Anything that's popularly known as a "loser cruiser" has an image
                                    problem, big time.

                                    While it's possible to imagine a number of fixes to buses
                                    (a la Curitiba), nothing can fix their inherent energy
                                    inefficiency. They're too short in relation to their
                                    frontal area, and they ride on highly inefficient pneumatic
                                    tires. The upshot is that they're shockingly energy inefficient,
                                    even with a full load. (The last data I had, for GM's RTS4 bus
                                    from the early 80s, was 3 MPG in urban service.) At typical low
                                    load factors, and given the required dead-heading, many bus
                                    operations probably use more energy per passenger mile than
                                    cars.

                                    True, if you improved the load factor, the situation would
                                    improve considerably, but a long tram, running on steel rails,
                                    is an intrinsically more efficient vehicle, no matter what
                                    the power source.

                                    Hence, rail-based transport is to be preferred for all land-based
                                    transport. (Cargo ships are quite efficient, and can be sail-powered
                                    if need be.)


                                    -- ### --

                                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                    postmaster@... Carfree.com
                                  • Henning Mortensen
                                    ... actually here in Regina, it s known as a shaker. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                      >Anything that's popularly known as a "loser cruiser" has an image
                                      >problem, big time.
                                      >

                                      actually here in Regina, it's known as a shaker.

                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                                    • Mike Lacey
                                      What about electric trolley buses? Just under one half of San Francisco s fleet is thus comprised. They are surely more energy efficient, and they work far
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                        What about electric trolley buses? Just under one half of San
                                        Francisco's fleet is thus comprised.

                                        They are surely more energy efficient, and they work far better on
                                        the hills, and are of course much quieter and don't belch out noxious
                                        gases.

                                        Given that stringing OH wires is much less of an overhead (no pun
                                        intended) than installing tracks (especially underground tracks), and
                                        that cities will always cite financial considerations in their
                                        transit choices, and that there will always be a contiongent of the
                                        populous that simply don't like travelling underground,
                                        isn't "trackless trolly" a viable option for some carfree cities?

                                        In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@c...> wrote:
                                        > While it's possible to imagine a number of fixes to buses
                                        > (a la Curitiba), nothing can fix their inherent energy
                                        > inefficiency. They're too short in relation to their
                                        > frontal area, and they ride on highly inefficient pneumatic
                                        > tires. The upshot is that they're shockingly energy inefficient,
                                        > even with a full load. (The last data I had, for GM's RTS4 bus
                                        > from the early 80s, was 3 MPG in urban service.) At typical low
                                        > load factors, and given the required dead-heading, many bus
                                        > operations probably use more energy per passenger mile than
                                        > cars.
                                        >
                                        > True, if you improved the load factor, the situation would
                                        > improve considerably, but a long tram, running on steel rails,
                                        > is an intrinsically more efficient vehicle, no matter what
                                        > the power source.
                                        >
                                        > Hence, rail-based transport is to be preferred for all land-based
                                        > transport. (Cargo ships are quite efficient, and can be sail-powered
                                        > if need be.)
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        ### --
                                        >
                                        > J.H. Crawford Carfree
                                        Cities
                                        > postmaster@c... Carfree.com
                                      • Mark Jaroski
                                        ... Yes, I suppose they are cheaper to install, but the trolley busses have some drawbacks, mainly that they derail fairly frequently and that the wires are
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                          Mike Lacey wrote:
                                          > Given that stringing OH wires is much less of an overhead (no pun
                                          > intended) than installing tracks (especially underground tracks), and
                                          > that cities will always cite financial considerations in their
                                          > transit choices, and that there will always be a contiongent of the
                                          > populous that simply don't like travelling underground,
                                          > isn't "trackless trolly" a viable option for some carfree cities?

                                          Yes, I suppose they are cheaper to install, but the trolley
                                          busses have some drawbacks, mainly that they derail fairly
                                          frequently and that the wires are rather on the unsightly
                                          side.

                                          Of course without having to share the street with cars a lot
                                          of the other problems with the trolley busses go away, since
                                          they no longer have to deal with double parking and traffic.

                                          --
                                          -- mark at geekhive dot net
                                          ==================================================================
                                        • J.H. Crawford
                                          ... Actually, they may NOT be more energy efficient. They probably weigh nearly as much as a conventional bus, they ride on standard bus tires, and their
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                            Mike Lacey said:

                                            >What about electric trolley buses? Just under one half of San
                                            >Francisco's fleet is thus comprised.

                                            Actually, they may NOT be more energy efficient. They probably
                                            weigh nearly as much as a conventional bus, they ride on standard
                                            bus tires, and their frontal profile is the same. Electrical
                                            transmission losses and AC-to-DC conversion may yield a net power
                                            efficiency close to that of a diesel engine.

                                            >They are surely more energy efficient, and they work far better on
                                            >the hills, and are of course much quieter and don't belch out noxious
                                            >gases.

                                            I lived on a street in SF at the time a diesel line was converted
                                            to trolly bus operation, and the improvement for those living
                                            along the route was huge. From a quality of life standpoint,
                                            they're much better, although the enormous amount of hardware
                                            that has to be hung over intersections, to deal with the double
                                            wires required, is a real minus.

                                            >Given that stringing OH wires is much less of an overhead (no pun
                                            >intended) than installing tracks (especially underground tracks), and
                                            >that cities will always cite financial considerations in their
                                            >transit choices, and that there will always be a contiongent of the
                                            >populous that simply don't like travelling underground,
                                            >isn't "trackless trolly" a viable option for some carfree cities?

                                            I don't think it's a very good option. I think trams, which really
                                            don't cost much to install--putting the tracks into the street
                                            really isn't that big a deal--are a better choice in most circumstances.
                                            Very steep hils certainly do militate against trams and in favor
                                            of trolley buses, a la San Francisco.



                                            -- ### --

                                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                            postmaster@... Carfree.com
                                          • Alex Farran
                                            ... Well that s something I didn t know. I d always classed them as roughly equivalent. Trams are the way to go then. I d guess that they don t cost
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                              "J.H. Crawford" wrote:
                                              >
                                              > True, if you improved the load factor, the situation would
                                              > improve considerably, but a long tram, running on steel rails,
                                              > is an intrinsically more efficient vehicle, no matter what
                                              > the power source.

                                              Well that's something I didn't know. I'd always classed them as roughly
                                              equivalent. Trams are the way to go then. I'd guess that they don't cost
                                              significantly more than buses either. How much more efficient are they?

                                              --
                                              __o
                                              _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                                              (*)/(*)
                                              Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                                            • J.H. Crawford
                                              ... I don t have good statistics, and it varies from application to application in any case. The fundamentals are: 1) In transportation, mass costs energy.
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                                >Well that's something I didn't know. I'd always classed them as roughly
                                                >equivalent. Trams are the way to go then. I'd guess that they don't cost
                                                >significantly more than buses either. How much more efficient are they?

                                                I don't have good statistics, and it varies from application to
                                                application in any case.

                                                The fundamentals are:

                                                1) In transportation, mass costs energy. Lower mass per passenger
                                                uses less energy (energy expended to accelerate the vehicle is
                                                lost to braking, unless efficient regenerative braking is employed,
                                                which is rare). Rolling resistance rises proportionately to mass.

                                                2) Long, this shapes have less wind resistance than short, fat shapes

                                                3) Steel wheels on steel rails provide the lowest rolling resistance
                                                known (and one note likely to improve much).

                                                4) Speed costs energy; travelling twice as fast consumes twice as
                                                much energy for a given trip (as far as energy to overcome
                                                wind resistance, which is the most important factor in rail
                                                transport).

                                                5) The resistance of pneumatic tires increases with speed. I don't
                                                believe that this condition affects steel wheels/rails at all.

                                                At the moment, everything is so inefficient, and public transport
                                                loads are often so low, that the inherent efficiency of rail is
                                                a bit lost from sight. However, as energy supplies become tight in
                                                the years ahead, the efficiency of rail systems will reassert itself.
                                                It is, after all, the reason that trains were the preferred means of
                                                transport in the energy-limited 19th century.



                                                -- ### --

                                                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                                postmaster@... Carfree.com
                                              • Ronald Dawson
                                                ... That flexibility exists only, because other infrastructure is available for use. ... a ... I guess you ve never been to Ottawa. Dawson
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                                  Alex Farran wrote:
                                                  >For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They still cost
                                                  >much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible.

                                                  That flexibility exists only, because other infrastructure is available for
                                                  use.

                                                  >A metro like system
                                                  >implemented with buses, as in the Curitaba example (
                                                  >http://brt.volpe.dot.gov/issues/pt3.html ) produces many of the benefits of
                                                  a
                                                  >subway for a fraction of the cost.
                                                  >Cost does matter and subways are expensive.

                                                  I guess you've never been to Ottawa. Dawson
                                                • Alex Farran
                                                  ... So you might not choose this option if you re building a new city. Otherwise it makes sense to re-use as much as possible. ... Ottawa, Ontario -
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                                    Ronald Dawson wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Alex Farran wrote:
                                                    > >For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They still cost
                                                    > >much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible.
                                                    >
                                                    > That flexibility exists only, because other infrastructure is available for
                                                    > use.

                                                    So you might not choose this option if you're building a new city. Otherwise
                                                    it makes sense to re-use as much as possible.

                                                    > >A metro like system
                                                    > >implemented with buses, as in the Curitaba example (
                                                    > >http://brt.volpe.dot.gov/issues/pt3.html ) produces many of the benefits of
                                                    > a
                                                    > >subway for a fraction of the cost.
                                                    > >Cost does matter and subways are expensive.
                                                    >
                                                    > I guess you've never been to Ottawa.

                                                    "Ottawa, Ontario - Ottawa’s Transitway, built in stages from 1978
                                                    through 1996, is a 19-mile bus-only road leading to the central
                                                    business district, where it connects to exclusive bus lanes on city
                                                    streets. Over 75 percent of passenger bus trips are made using the
                                                    Transitway. The Transitway was constructed largely on rail
                                                    rights-of-way and was designed for possible conversion to rail
                                                    should ridership warrant. The main Transitway routes use
                                                    articulated buses with proof-of-payment fare collection to speed
                                                    boarding -- only one quarter of the riders pay cash. Feeder buses
                                                    operate on a timed transfer system."

                                                    Sounds like a good bus system. What's your point?

                                                    --
                                                    __o
                                                    _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                                                    (*)/(*)
                                                    Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.