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

RE: [carfree_cities] Monday Market

Expand Messages
  • Louis-Luc
    We had the same idea! (I wrote my followup before reading yours). Cheers. Louis-Luc
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 7, 2001
      We had the same idea!
      (I wrote my followup before reading yours).

      Cheers.
      Louis-Luc
      > How about suggesting that the market vendors all chip in a few bucks to
      > hire a thick-calved college student to run a pedicab back and
      > forth during
      > the "closure".
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Simon Baddeley
      Is this your town? Is this the notorious Christchurch where local politicians are so obtuse about the damage done by fossil fuelled traffic to local quality of
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
        Is this your town? Is this the notorious Christchurch where local
        politicians are so obtuse about the damage done by fossil fuelled traffic to
        local quality of life? If so then at least some progress is being made even
        if it brings another problems with it.

        S


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


        Scenario:

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

        Normally, every one-and-a-half minutes throughout the day, a mainly empty
        double decked bus thunders through the High Street belching fumes, only to
        turn around and make its way back to its point of origin in the large town
        10 miles away. (700 buses per day)
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
          Simon Baddeley said:

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

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



          -- ### --

          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          postmaster@... Carfree.com
        • Boileau,Pierre [NCR]
          Hello Joel, I agree about the metros. I also have to say that I ve finally read the carfree cities bible and I m am amazed by the amount of depth that the
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
            Hello Joel,

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

            Many thanks

            Pierre.

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



            Simon Baddeley said:

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

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



            -- ### --

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


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

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



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Alex Farran
            ... Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it s going to be expensive to build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what s wrong with
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
              "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
              >
              > Hello Joel,
              >
              > I agree about the metros. I also have to say that I've finally read the
              > carfree cities bible and I'm am amazed by the amount of depth that the
              > reference design contains. One question I had was how you proposed to deal
              > with construction equipment (mostly fossil fuel powered) during the
              > modifications to existing cities which would be necessary to make them
              > carfree.
              >
              > Many thanks
              >
              > Pierre.
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              >
              > ouch! This is the reason, of course, that I favor metros over trams over
              > buses. The trams can at least be made fairly quiet, and they carry enough
              > passengers that they don't have to run every minute or two. Metros, of
              > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
              >

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

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

              Anyway the important thing is the fact that the street was closed to all motor
              traffic. The major disruption and danger comes from cars not buses.
              --
              __o
              _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
              (*)/(*)
              Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
            • Richard Risemberg
              ... Metros, of ... Nothing, when it s underground so that the streets are free for people on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                Alex Farran wrote:
                >
                > "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
                Metros, of
                > > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
                > >
                >
                > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be expensive to
                > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what's wrong with
                > running every minute or two?

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

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

                "Life is complicated and not for the timid."
                Garrison Keillor
              • J.H. Crawford
                ... This is what it s all about. ... Relatively, that s correct. They re still large & dangerous, and most of them make quite a lot of noise (although the old
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                  Rick continued:

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

                  This is what it's all about.

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

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

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

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

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

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



                  -- ### --

                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  postmaster@... Carfree.com
                • J.H. Crawford
                  ... In many cases, the only reasonable way to proceed is to allow conventiona construction equipment to have access (although it s possible to at least make
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                    Pierre Boileau said:

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

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

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

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

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



                    -- ### --

                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                    postmaster@... Carfree.com
                  • Alex Farran
                    ... That seems like an argument for routing all non-pedestrian traffic underground. Does every road have to be pedestrianised? There will always be traffic
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                      Richard Risemberg wrote:
                      >
                      > Alex Farran wrote:
                      > >
                      > > "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" wrote:
                      > Metros, of
                      > > > course, are out of sight and out of mind.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be expensive to
                      > > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And what's wrong with
                      > > running every minute or two?
                      >
                      > Nothing, when it's underground so that the streets are free for people
                      > on foot. The mingling of pedestrians, and the relaxed pace of foot
                      > travel, are what permit a city to establish a vibrant social commerce
                      > among its denizens, and are good for business too, as people in cars
                      > don't window shop.

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

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

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


                      --
                      __o
                      _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                      (*)/(*)
                      Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                    • Philip D Riggs
                      ... Moscow subways run every minute during rush hour and every three minutes at non-peak hours. The number of people the Moscow system transports is simply
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                        > > > Metro, tube, underground, whatever you call it it's going to be
                        > expensive to
                        > > > build and maintain compared to above ground transport. And
                        > what's wrong with
                        > > > running every minute or two?
                        > >
                        Moscow subways run every minute during rush hour and every three minutes
                        at non-peak hours. The number of people the Moscow system transports is
                        simply incredible. Be at a station in the morning when people are going
                        to work and be amazed. And the Paris system to me demonstrates that
                        underground businesses provided convenient shopping during travel. Rents
                        from these shops could be used to offset the metro cost. Look into the
                        lucrative mall rentals where the draw is the large department store. The
                        draw for these underground shopping centers is neccessary transport. Two
                        positives, replace international corporate stores with locally owned
                        shops and support public transportation.


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

                        *******************************
                        Philip Riggs
                        Colorado State University
                        Fort Collins, Colorado
                      • Alex Farran
                        ... I think buses have an image problem, possibly because of the way bus systems have been implemented. They are transport for people who can t afford cars.
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                          Philip D Riggs wrote:

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

                          --
                          __o
                          _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                          (*)/(*)
                          Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                        • J.H. Crawford
                          ... Anything that s popularly known as a loser cruiser has an image problem, big time. While it s possible to imagine a number of fixes to buses (a la
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                            Alex Farren responded:

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

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

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

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

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


                            -- ### --

                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                            postmaster@... Carfree.com
                          • Henning Mortensen
                            ... actually here in Regina, it s known as a shaker. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                              >Anything that's popularly known as a "loser cruiser" has an image
                              >problem, big time.
                              >

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

                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                            • Mike Lacey
                              What about electric trolley buses? Just under one half of San Francisco s fleet is thus comprised. They are surely more energy efficient, and they work far
                              Message 14 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                What about electric trolley buses? Just under one half of San
                                Francisco's fleet is thus comprised.

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

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

                                In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@c...> wrote:
                                > While it's possible to imagine a number of fixes to buses
                                > (a la Curitiba), nothing can fix their inherent energy
                                > inefficiency. They're too short in relation to their
                                > frontal area, and they ride on highly inefficient pneumatic
                                > tires. The upshot is that they're shockingly energy inefficient,
                                > even with a full load. (The last data I had, for GM's RTS4 bus
                                > from the early 80s, was 3 MPG in urban service.) At typical low
                                > load factors, and given the required dead-heading, many bus
                                > operations probably use more energy per passenger mile than
                                > cars.
                                >
                                > True, if you improved the load factor, the situation would
                                > improve considerably, but a long tram, running on steel rails,
                                > is an intrinsically more efficient vehicle, no matter what
                                > the power source.
                                >
                                > Hence, rail-based transport is to be preferred for all land-based
                                > transport. (Cargo ships are quite efficient, and can be sail-powered
                                > if need be.)
                                >
                                >
                                > --
                                ### --
                                >
                                > J.H. Crawford Carfree
                                Cities
                                > postmaster@c... Carfree.com
                              • Mark Jaroski
                                ... Yes, I suppose they are cheaper to install, but the trolley busses have some drawbacks, mainly that they derail fairly frequently and that the wires are
                                Message 15 of 25 , Aug 20, 2001
                                  Mike Lacey wrote:
                                  > Given that stringing OH wires is much less of an overhead (no pun
                                  > intended) than installing tracks (especially underground tracks), and
                                  > that cities will always cite financial considerations in their
                                  > transit choices, and that there will always be a contiongent of the
                                  > populous that simply don't like travelling underground,
                                  > isn't "trackless trolly" a viable option for some carfree cities?

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

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

                                  --
                                  -- mark at geekhive dot net
                                  ==================================================================
                                • J.H. Crawford
                                  ... Actually, they may NOT be more energy efficient. They probably weigh nearly as much as a conventional bus, they ride on standard bus tires, and their
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                    Mike Lacey said:

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

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

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

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

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

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



                                    -- ### --

                                    J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                    postmaster@... Carfree.com
                                  • Alex Farran
                                    ... Well that s something I didn t know. I d always classed them as roughly equivalent. Trams are the way to go then. I d guess that they don t cost
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                      "J.H. Crawford" wrote:
                                      >
                                      > True, if you improved the load factor, the situation would
                                      > improve considerably, but a long tram, running on steel rails,
                                      > is an intrinsically more efficient vehicle, no matter what
                                      > the power source.

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

                                      --
                                      __o
                                      _`\<, "If you brake, you don't win." -Mario Cipollini
                                      (*)/(*)
                                      Alex Farran, Lewes, East Sussex, UK www.alexfarran.com
                                    • J.H. Crawford
                                      ... I don t have good statistics, and it varies from application to application in any case. The fundamentals are: 1) In transportation, mass costs energy.
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                        >Well that's something I didn't know. I'd always classed them as roughly
                                        >equivalent. Trams are the way to go then. I'd guess that they don't cost
                                        >significantly more than buses either. How much more efficient are they?

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

                                        The fundamentals are:

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

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

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

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

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

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



                                        -- ### --

                                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                        postmaster@... Carfree.com
                                      • Ronald Dawson
                                        ... That flexibility exists only, because other infrastructure is available for use. ... a ... I guess you ve never been to Ottawa. Dawson
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                          Alex Farran wrote:
                                          >For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They still cost
                                          >much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible.

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

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

                                          I guess you've never been to Ottawa. Dawson
                                        • Alex Farran
                                          ... So you might not choose this option if you re building a new city. Otherwise it makes sense to re-use as much as possible. ... Ottawa, Ontario -
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Aug 21, 2001
                                            Ronald Dawson wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Alex Farran wrote:
                                            > >For which the most appropriate comparison is the railways. They still cost
                                            > >much more than bus lanes, and are less flexible.
                                            >
                                            > That flexibility exists only, because other infrastructure is available for
                                            > use.

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

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

                                            "Ottawa, Ontario - OttawaÂ’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.