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

Re: [carfree_cities] Monday Market

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >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 2 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  "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 8 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > > > 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 13 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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
                              • 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 15 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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
                                    ==================================================================
                                  • 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
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >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
                                    • 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 18 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 19 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          "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 20 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            >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 21 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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 22 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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.