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

RE: [carfree_cities] Monday Market

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.