[All] A Rapid Streetcar Form of Light Rail ?
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Mon Nov 16 01:34:14 EST 2009
Hi Lulu,
Glad that you communicated some of your experience with streetcars &
electric buses -- the very complex rapid transit initiative project
requires as many good minds as possible. Sorry for the delay, but I
had to wait until I had time for a hopefully somewhat thoughtful
response. Fundamental to my reply is the favouring of slower "old
school" research & consultation over "new school" quick internet
position formation. And declaring something (as true) does not make it
true, e.g. "The concept of "WIRES" or "rails" is not needed for
electric mass transit today. That's old school. ...". (As I indicate
below, wireless green buses are best suited for
cross interconnection with Streetcar-style LRT -- initially BRT for C
-- in the W-K-C corridor.)
I certainly prefer Electric Trolley Buses over the directly polluting
diesel, gasoline & and natural gas buses. They are cheaper than hybrid
buses and currently much, much cheaper than fuel cell electric buses.
Also while they have many of the advantages of a Trolley Streetcar (or
LRT Streetcar), they do unfortunately have for many people the "bus
stigma" -- most environmentalists excepted I hope -- which means much
less drawing power than LRT. (Too many "other-directed" people [see
work of sociologist David Riesman, e.g http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503294/David-Riesman
] fear being loosing a few notches on the socio-economic hierarchy. In
1960's Montreal a somewhat forward thinking woman suggested that
losers use the bus but the commuter train was
just fine.)
So for at least psycho-social reasons, LRT has much more drawing power
than all of its bus competitors. Not unrelated, LRT routing can be
planned to be mostly off-road (scarce road space preservation), have
fewer stops, and integrate with just-in-time cross-linking buses --
this translates into significant time savings. Some new articulated (&
much lower-priced to buy/operate) LRT's are designed to be lighter,
faster stopping, greater accelerating and have higher but stable top
speeds. All this -- and more -- means a much better return on
investment including a greater contribution to stablizing climate.
(See http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm and explore
in depth to great advantage http://hamiltonlightrail.com/ displayed
partly below.)
"... bus can take detours when there is an accident, streetcars and
light rails can't."
Just like in Toronto where trolley street cars running on streets can
often divert around road accidents using links to parallel streets,
increasing future LRT demand may lead to the use of (linked?) parallel
streets/'rail rights of way' (such as Park St. &/or Iron Horse Trail &/
or the current rail line that would allow accident-sites on King St.
to be temporarily avoided). Also, dedicated rail corridors both on &
off streets will mean road less involvement/effects re. accidents.
Once stable cross-linking-to-LRT bus routes are established, I would
like to see Trolley Buses so considered for gradual implementation.
(See http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:X1dIQ9ZBaBUJ:www.newflyer.com/index/trolley+Flyer+trolley+bus&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
0). However, hydrogen combustion or hydrogen (or methane) fuel cell
electric buses may be the more desirable future use. And the fact of
connecting with the more popular LRT will likely increase the bus use
(People can say to their peers, "I'm using the bus just to connect
with the LRT." And they will likely look forward to the more
comfortable and pleasant LRT ride.)
I am working on a possible Pro-LRT newspaper article which I hope to
complete in the near
future once I am satisfied that my field-based & consultative research
has yielded sufficiently viable ideas. I sense that I am close to
that point. (I very much appreciate the
advice of 2 GREN members on how to best write such an article -- not
to mention the politicians, staff and other citizens who given
generousy of their time over 2 years.)
Best wishes,
Robert
Here is likely why John Shortreed (affectionately called Dr. Bus) some
weeks ago, out of the blue, suggested that a relatively-slow Portland-
style streetcar connecting the downtowns of
K & W might be a good idea -- despite KW being a much different
context & challenge! http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development_200804_report.pdf
On 12-Nov-09, at 8:33 AM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:
> Hi folks
>
> I lived car free in Toronto for 7 years so when it comes to subways
> and streetcars, I've been there done that. The nice thing about
> streetcars was the frequency. I was lucky enough to live by stops
> that had 10-15 minute intervals. For me it's about warmth in the
> winter. If the wait is reasonable, I'll take it.
>
> If I has a preference between streetcars or electric bus, I'd pick
> the bus hands down because bus can take detours when there is an
> accident, streetcars and light rails can't. I've been in issues
> where I had to hop off the streetcar so we could take the bus to go
> around whatever mess was blocking the road ahead. Electric buses, a
> whole fleet of them. are on the roads already all around the world.
> Check it out. The concept of "WIRES" or "rails" is not needed for
> electric mass transit today. That's old school. When it comes to
> ridership, it's FREQUENCY and accessiblity that's the key and the
> bus needs no road major grading mods at all.
>
> Lulu
>
> --- On Thu, 11/12/09, Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Subject: [All] A Rapid Streetcar Form of Light Rail ?
> To: "* GREN" <all at gren.ca>
> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 2:52 AM
>
> Hi All,
>
> "The rapid streetcar concept takes the same features of light rail -
> speed, attractiveness, permanent tracks which draw large private
> investment and dedicated lanes - but uses slightly smaller vehicles
> and doesn't require massive relocation of underground services due
> to the lighter vehicles." (See
> below inclusion)
>
> This looks interesting as a possible way to lower costs, maintain
> performance, increase stop frequency & quiet critics?
>
> Robert
>
> PS: This is from a recent email (slightly improved) that I sent to
> GREN about T4ST.
>
> "... Susan (Koswan) recently wrote an op-ed pro light rail article
> because most members support it. However, the complexity of LRT
> suggests likely room for improvement in our position. Because the
> larger community may have some unique LRT insights, it is to GREN's
> advantage to solicit & hear all criticisms and ideas. Especially
> when some of their concerns appear to be valid -- or a large # of
> people think they are -- then they should be given serious
> consideration. Unaddressed angry "taxpayers" can be very disruptive
> of necessary social & environmental advancement -- as the "tea
> baggers" in the US demonstrate.
>
> As my previous email on Light Rail said, I agree with members of
> T4ST -- most of whom will likely never use any form of transit
> unless they lose their job &/or have to work in the GTA -- who say
> that Light Rail as currently designed can cause some "grave
> problems". However, I differ with their implied exaggerated
> conception of a "grave problem". For example, their co-chair has a
> business on King St. between the K&W downtowns. His "grave problem"
> is that taxpayers -- including he, his wife & their clients -- will
> be inconvenienced by the new equivalent one-wayness of King street &
> a raised track. To me this is a very minor sacrifice that some
> taxpayer-drivers will be asked to make for the sake of LRT speed &
> safety (exclusive car dominance has existed for too long). ...
>
> A "grave problem" for me would be for foresightless planning to make
> -- on key arteries -- unnecessarily decreases in road capacity
> (King: 4 lanes to 2) or necessary road capacity increases difficult
> (Ottawa: 2 lanes to 4). And this with new environmentally-neutral
> car propulsion systems & growing core-populations! Being more
> future-sensitive, we will need all the road space we can muster in
> order to avoid developing local traffic jams (making this area less
> desirable to live -- with attendant property value decreases [but
> resulting lower property taxes?] -- & visit). A very successful LRT
> will both attract more higher-level people as users but also not
> anger drivers in their green vehicles from transit-caused
> insufficient road capacity. Then we will better signify to the World
> that Waterloo Region has arrived as a modern municipal player on the
> World Stage. (I agree with T4ST on 1 thing though: using the name
> Golden Triangle.)
>
> This group certainly merits watching especially as they want to have
> a Rapid Transit referendum as part of the 2010 municipal elections.
> Maybe we should invite them to address GREN? Try to attend their
> meeting this evening & speak your thoughts."
>
>
>
>
> http://hamiltonlightrail.com/
>
> Hamilton Light Rail
>
> Light Rail. Right Now.
> Home
> About
> About HLR
> Introduction
> Privacy Policy
> Case Studies
> A Ride on Bordeaux's LRT
> Contact
> Getting On the Right Track
> Grenoble Rebalances its Transportation System
> Grenoble's Lessons for Hamilton
> Light Rail Lessons from Buffalo
> Metro de Porto, Portugal
> Ottawa's BRT Transitway: Modern Miracle or Mega-Mirage?
> Portland Light Rail System
> Possible Routes for Mountain LRT
> Proposal: Light Rail on Main Street
> Update coming from city for planned rapid transit neighbours
> Variability in Light Rail Costs Per Kilometre
> Why Developers Like Light Rail
> Resources
> An Economic Case for Light Rail
> Eight Reasons Everyone Should Support Light Rail
> HLR Presentation Video
> Light Rail and Downtown Revitalization
> Light Rail Presentation
> Light Rail Quotes
> LRT Endorsements
> Presentation: The Case for LRT Made in Hamilton - DRAFT
> Published Light Rail Reports
> Publications
> Economic Case for LRT
> The Case for LRT "Made in Hamilton" - DRAFT
> Why Everyone Should Support Light Rail
> Sign Up
> Log In
> Getting On the Right Track
> We can learn from Toronto and other cities and develop the right
> system for our city without the obstacles and negative side effects
> being incorporated.
> By Jason Leach
>
> Toronto Star article discusses the ongoing battle in Toronto over
> dedicated streetcar lanes and their impact on neighbourhoods.
>
> Our proposal for a streetcar line from McMaster to Eastgate is
> affordable and efficient, and will have a great impact on
> surrounding neighbourhoods. Here's why:
> 1. Cost
>
> 'rapid streetcar' using modern streetcar vehicles is much cheaper
> to build than a full LRT system. Toronto is proposing an LRT system,
> which, of course, is much cheaper than a subway.
>
> The rapid streetcar concept takes the same features of light rail -
> speed, attractiveness, permanent tracks which draw large private
> investment and dedicated lanes - but uses slightly smaller vehicles
> and doesn't require massive relocation of underground services due
> to the lighter vehicles.
> 2. Dedicated lanes, not Walls, Curbs and Obstacles
>
> rapid streetcar plan such as the one proposed to run both ways on
> Main Street would see streetcars in their own lane, but would still
> allow cars to make left turns at most streets and cross the tracks
> easily and safely. The raised curbs that are a feature of Toronto's
> streetcar lanes are rather clumsy obstacles for pedestrians,
> cyclists and vehicles.
>
> In Portland or most European cities with modern streetcars it is
> common to see street parking on the "other side" of the tracks
> against the curb as well as pedestrians crossing the tracks with
> their groceries or cyclists crossing the tracks as necessary.
> Obviously the train has the right of way, but we aren't talking
> about a bullet train speeding along killing people. Streetcars are
> designed to fit perfectly in the urban environment, not act as
> obstacles.
> Streetcars blend into the cityscape. Feel like jaywalking, crossing
> the tracks on your bike or dropping someone off? Make sure no train
> is coming and go for it.
>
> See more photos at Urbanplanet.
> Note - the above photos from Portland show a streetcar that uses the
> same lanes as cars. Regardless, a double solid yellow line and
> signage would allow the same design to be used with a system using
> dedicated lanes. No curbs required.
> 3. Neighbourhood/Retail Impact
>
> et's be brutally honest here. Main street is a shell of what it used
> to be and what it could be. In Toronto, some shopkeepers feel that
> the high curbs in the middle of the road and lack of parking have
> resulted in bad news for business in areas like Spadina that have
> always seemed to boom.
>
> In Hamilton, five-lane freeways, tiny sidewalks and timed lights
> have killed once-bustling retail streets. We have parking coming out
> of our backsides, but few customers and many less shops than there
> should be.
> Rapid streetcars would slow down the vehicle traffic on Main. Curb
> parking would be retained on the south curb along its entire length
> and folks could easily turn onto and off of side streets to find
> more parking.
> More importantly, people and businesses would begin to show up in
> large numbers as a result of the streetcar line. The line shown in
> Portland in the photos above has seen $1.5 billion in private
> investment within a five minute walk of the tracks since opening.
> Hamilton's east/west corridor has many underused lots and buildings.
> A streetcar along with a more pedestrian-friendly environment (think
> trees and benches along the entire corridor) would revitalize
> neighbourhoods that have been ignored for too long.
> LRT spaces stops apart quite far. A rapid streetcar would take a
> medium approach, having stops spaced out further than a typical bus
> route, but not as great a distance as with LRT.
> 4. Transportation Options
>
> ven though walking or cycling aren't directly mentioned as a benefit
> of a rapid streetcar, they are natural byproducts of this project.
> Right now people have one realistic option for traversing Main
> Street - their car. Streetcars still allow for two eastbound vehicle
> lanes, but having lights controlled for the streetcars instead of
> autos would make it quicker to get from downtown to Eastgate or
> Eastgate to Mac in the streetcar.
>
> Furthermore, balancing the transportation modes on Main Street would
> automatically result in more cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists
> would feel safer to ride their bikes on a normal city street whereas
> right now Main Street is not much different than the QEW. More
> shops, condos, restaurants and streetcar users means more people
> getting on and off trains, running errands, going out for coffee or
> just walking the dog.
> Main Street would start to look like a proper, urban street once
> again. Public art, benches, trees, flowers, patios and sidewalk
> displays would turn an empty, concrete canyon into a wonderful
> street for local residents and visitors.
> Hamilton is establishing a rapid transit office at city hall. I
> strongly urge those involved in the Transit Steering Committee and
> in this new transit office to research the modern/rapid streetcar
> concept. Bus Rapid Transit will be well-used east/west along the
> Mountain and various north/south routes such as Centennial/Hwy 20.
> Our urban east/west corridor is the most logical place for a modern
> streetcar system. The financial benefits would be incredible and the
> impact on Hamilton's economy would be fantastic.
> We can learn from Toronto and other cities and develop the right
> system for our city without the obstacles and negative side effects
> being incorporated. Hamilton's future is in the tracks.
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20091116/b948089e/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list