It happened deep in the heart of Ford Nation, with a few dozen people gathered in Agincourt for an information session put on by CodeRedTO, a non-partisan group that’s been active throughout this year’s transit debate. They’ve supported light-rail lines in Toronto’s suburbs over the mayor’s wish for “subways, subways, subways.” (He really likes the word “subways.”)

The mayor and his allies have said that Scarborough doesn’t want the planned LRT lines, which recently won provincial support. But the reception from this Scarborough crowd wasn’t all righteous anger and fury. They were there to learn.

http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-toronto-2/222847/subways-wont-win-rob-ford-scarborough-votes/

CodeRedTO.com was started by three Toronto residents concerned about transit options and fiscal responsibility in transit expansion. There is no outside funding or direction on this group or this website whatsoever. We have not met with any City Councillor, any Transit agency, or any construction or design groups. We do not live along the path of any proposed light rail or subway lines. We work in technology, urban design, and market research

To see the TTC presentation and CodeRedTO’s presentation, visit www.coderedTO.com

Why LRT?

I want subways, not streetcars

http://coderedto.com/why-lrt/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18072627

Of course SkyTrain neither being a real subway, or a transit system built by coherent planning, probably would be outside the realms of this study – a one off so to speak.

Subways ‘share universal structure’, research suggests

A study of the world’s largest subway networks has revealed that they are remarkably mathematically similar.

The layouts seem to converge over time to a similar structure regardless of where or over how long they were built.

The study, in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, analysed 14 subway networks around the world. It found common distributions of stations within the networks, as well as
common proportions of the numbers of lines, stations, and total distances.

In some senses, it is unsurprising that the study found that networks tended over time to comprise a dense core of central stations with a number of lines radiating outward from it.

By choosing the world’s largest networks, from Beijing to Barcelona, the results were bound to represent networks that serve city centres with a dense collection of stations and bring commuters inward from more distant stations.

But the analysis shows a number of less obvious similarities across all 14 networks.

It found the total number of stations was proportional to the square of the number of lines – that is, a four-fold increase in station number would result in a doubling of the number of lines.

The dense core of central stations all had the same average number of neighbours in the network, and in all cases, about half the total number of stations were found outside the core.

In addition, the length of any one branch from the core’s centre was about the same as twice the diameter of the core, and the number of stations at a given distance from the centre was proportional to the square of that distance.

The authors analysed how the networks grew and added lines and stations, finding that they all converged over time to these similar structures.

They authors point out that the similarities exist regardless of where the networks were, when they were begun, or how quickly they reached their current layout.

“Although these (networks) might appear to be planned in some centralised manner, it is our contention here that subway systems like many other features of city systems evolve and self-organise themselves as the product of a stream of rational but usually uncoordinated decisions taking place through time,” they wrote.

The authors say that the systems do not appear to be “fractal”. Fractal systems follow mathematical patterns that seem equivalent in a number of physical and social systems ranging from the movements of planets to the movements of depressed people, but they may or may not reflect a deeper, more universal organisational principle.

Nevertheless, the team wrote that some underlying rule is likely to be driving the way subway systems end up worldwide.

“The existence of unique long-time limit topological and spatial features is a universal signature that fundamental mechanisms, independent of historical and geographical differences, contribute to the evolution of these transportation networks,” they wrote.

It seems from TransLink’s own numbers that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible

for TransLink to reach ridership goals set for 2020.

Eric Chris, has done some very good research on the fare evasion issue and he brings up some very important points.

Focusing on the light-metro network, is TransLink doing a good job moving people? Is the SkyTrain network actually catering to the passenger loads that we the public are lead to beleive?

According to TransLink’s figures, the actual number of people using by the Canada Line in 2011 was 38,758,  just 30,398 persons less than the rest of the SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines combined! If true, it means that ridership on the SkyTrain light-metro system is far less than TransLink would have us think! In fact, the actual number of persons carried by the the SkyTrain light-metro just doesn’t meet the number to justify such expensive light-metro construction. If true, no wonder TransLink has financial problems.

The actual number of persons carried by both the Canada, Expo and Millennium Lines in 2011 is a mere 107,914 persons. Put another way, the taxpayer has spent well over $8 billion to date to carry 107,914 people in 2011! For added insult, just over 80,000 people first took the bus and transfered to the light-metro system, as TransLink has admitted that over 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus the transfer to the metro!

There is something drastically wrong with TransLink’s calculations and if these figures are to be beleived, Translink is in very serious trouble and will be in the future, as we just do not have the ridership to sustain the current level of servcie on the SkyTrain and Canada line light-metro systems. Yet we plan and build more with the Evergreen Line and the UBC subway!

BC’s Auditor General must step in and do a complete audit of TransLink, West coast Mountain Bus, the three light-metro lines, Handy Dart and Seabus, to give a clear and honest picture of the financial viability of TransLink.

Kim,

It is comical for TransLink to make such a spectacle of fare evasion.  Many fare evaders are bums or teenagers who either ride for free or don’t ride at all.  So, TransLink might be losing a seat on transit but it isn’t losing much money:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Fare+evaders+rack+millions+unpaid+transit+fines+Translink/6615183/story.html

After TransLink hires a collection agency to go after bums and teenagers, rest assured, fare evaders will end up costing taxpayers more than the $170 million for the fare gates and up to $15 million annually to administer the fare gates.  Mayor Corrigan thinks that TransLink is deceiving the public about fare losses:

http://www.burnabynow.com/life/Burnaby+mayor+says+Lekstrom+using+fare+evasion+evade+larger+issues/6398303/story.html

Now if you want to report on something substantial and  serious, how about reporting on the fact that TransLink collected $1,382 million  in revenue to move 317,635 people in 2011?   After subtracting $38  million for toll revenue and $115 million for road, bridge and bicycle  expenditures – transit revenues were about $1,229 million and the administrative  cost attributed to the deadbeats running TransLink was about $332  million.

Moreover, it cost TransLink $10.60 ($1,229 million / 365 days  / 317,635 people) to put someone onto transit for one day in 2011.   Gulp!

How about reporting on the drop in ridership on the Canada  Line, SeaBus and WCE in 2011?  See attached ridership which is highly  inflated for buses in 2011 due to the almost free bus passes handed out to  students in 2011.  Don’t expect ridership increases of any significance in  2012.  TransLink has exhausted all its gimmicks used to inflate ridership – recycling riders and counting them twice when they transfer to the SkyTrain from  buses, for instance.  How about reporting on the exploding vehicle use  since the formation of TransLink?  Transit use is lagging the population  growth in Metro Vancouver, see attached.

ec

commuters vehicles population 2011

TransitRidership 1989-2011

TransLink, BC Transit, SNC Lavalin, UBC, SFU, and a host of North American Engineering firms, please take note!

This ”lightness” of light rail – a combination of flexibility, low impact, modest cost, and environmental softness – is ephemeral. It must be carefully guarded. Ignorance or ineptitude during the planning, design, specification writing, engineering, or construction phases of a project can lose the “lightness”. Light rail’s advantages can be diminished or even destroyed with overdesigned overhead; ugly, noisy, or difficult-to-maintain cars; poorly conceived alignments; or simply uneconomic applications.”

Source: Light Rail Transit Special Report 221 United States Transportation Research Board National Research Council p 92

http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsvossloh-to-deliver-low-floor-trams-to-karlsruhe-city-in-germany/

http://www.tramtrain.org/en/history/history01.html

This comment on the Karlsruhe Tram, Tram-Train system was posted yesterday on the Light Rail Progress Professionals (LRPPro) group forum

Electric buses are quiet, pollution free and able to tackle steeper grades than diesel buses, are used on many Vancouver transit routes.

Haydn Acheson, President and General Manager, Coast Mountain Bus Company:

 

Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) under TransLink will no longer operate diesel buses on the designated trolley bus routes in Point Grey.  I trust that the City of Vancouver Mayor (Gregor Robertson), Point Grey MLA (Christy Clark), Quadra Federal MP (Joyce Murray) and City of Vancouver Chief Engineer (Peter Judd) all agree with the use of trolley buses on the designated trolley bus routes in Point Grey and with the prompt removal of all diesel buses operated by CMBC on the trolley bus routes in Point Grey.

 

Three roads in the east and west directions are used by CMBC for transit to and from UBC in Point Grey; they are West 4th Avenue, West 10th Avenue and West 16th Avenue.  Both West 4th Avenue and West 10th Avenue have trolley bus lines installed and are intended to be diesel bus free.  If any diesel bus service is required to supplement the trolley bus routes in Point Grey, the diesel buses (including the 99 B-Line and N17) to UBC will operate along West 16th Avenue which does not have trolley lines installed.  Unless, there is a catastrophic event such as the loss of electrical power for the trolley buses – no diesel buses will operate on 4th Avenue or West 10th Avenue.

 

It is unethical for CMBC to sacrifice not only trolley bus service in Point Grey but also conventional transit service in Surrey, Langley and Delta to spend wildly and foolishly on unconventional SkyTrain such as the proposed Evergreen Line.  As the attached article on the Edmonton engineers behind LRT shows, engineers in Edmonton choose LRT over BRT (bus rapid transit such as 99 B-Line diesel buses) and SkyTrain (elevated and automated trains, without drivers) to lessen the financial, social and environmental impacts of transit.  Moreover, as a percentage of the population, Edmonton with LRT which is more user friendly than SkyTrain has more transit users than Metro Vancouver focused on SkyTrain.

 

Engineers working for the City of Edmonton plan, model and design transit.  In Edmonton where the climate is harsh resulting in substantial costs for the winterization of transit, it still costs about 33% less for the engineers, running transit in Edmonton, to put someone onto transit than it costs the accountants, economists and others running TransLink (in mild Metro Vancouver) to put someone onto transit (refer to Figure 4-9 on page 27 of the TransLink efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting completed for the TransLink Commissioner, Martin Crilly, in March 2012):

 

http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf

 

In 2011, TransLink spent approximately $900 million to operate transit, and if engineers were operating LRT, instead, in Metro Vancouver, $300 million would have been saved in 2011.  Financially, SkyTrain by TransLink is an abysmal failure.

 

Costing next to nothing, a handful of engineers could easily turn transit around quickly in Metro Vancouver and could accomplish far more than the hundreds of costly administrators at TransLink ever could.   Most, if not all, of the existing overhead and administration incurred by TransLink could be done by existing staff of the GVRD under Metro Vancouver to potentially save $300 million annually.  This would end the financial crisis created by TransLink spending too much to maintain a large group of redundant administrators directed by provincial government to expand SkyTrain.  Moreover, it would reduce transit expenses sufficiently to make additional taxes (gas or property) unnecessary to fund transit for the foreseeable future:

 

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/Pages/default.aspx

 

Transit would operate smoothly and efficiently if engineers were given the responsibility to plan, model and design transit in Metro Vancouver with the mayors and councillors in Metro Vancouver setting the transit priorities and spending limits of the engineers.  Councillor Jaimie McEvoy of New Westminster recently alluded to this:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Councillor+says+TransLink+should+abolished/6554203/story.html

 

The efficiency review of TransLink, by Shirocca Consulting, for the TransLink Commissioner makes it clear that at grade transit (LRT, trolley bus or streetcar transit) with frequent stops attracts much more ridership for less money than bus rapid transit with infrequent stops and SkyTrain lines with infrequent stops.  After the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting, Martin Crilly was not forthcoming about TransLink’s performance which is the worst of all the transit organizations compared – by a significant margin.

 

Martin Crilly danced around the real reason for TransLink’s pitiful performance – TransLink is operating too many extra diesel buses to shuttle passengers between the distantly spaced stops for SkyTrain and BRT, such as the 99 B-Line.  SkyTrain and BRT are relatively inaccessible due to their stops being kilometres apart and CMBC must operate extra buses in high frequencies to get passengers to 99 B-Line diesel buses and SkyTrain cars.  This has resulted in the dreadful utilization rates for CMBC buses and is indicated by plummeting passengers per hour on buses and the rising cost per passenger for buses as shown in Figure 5-4 on page 48 of the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting:

 

http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf

 

It is specious of TransLink to claim that express 99 B-Line service or SkyTrain service with distantly spaced stops is faster than LRT, streetcar or regular trolley bus service with closely spaced stops.  SkyTrain or 99 B-Line service requires transfers from CMBC buses and results in longer overall commuting times for most passengers in relation to LRT, streetcar or trolley bus service (doing away with transfers along the route).

 

 

Silly UBC Transit

On April 23rd, 2012 TransLink suspended the #9 trolley bus service along West 10th Avenue to UBC and increased the 99 B-Line diesel bus service along West 10th Avenue to UBC (please refer to the timetables attached).  Typically, articulated diesel buses pass residences every one to three minutes (either east or west direction) along West 10th Avenue.  Wailing, shrieking, polluting and unwelcome articulated diesel buses operate 22 hours daily (in service or out of service) from 6 am to 4 am along West 10th Avenue.

 

Presently, there are 13 transit routes to UBC (#4, #14, N17, #25, #33, #41, #43, #44, #49, #84, 99-Line, #258, #480).  Along West 10th Avenue, there are empty 99 B-Line buses passing empty #14 trolley buses which don’t even belong on West 10th Avenue in Point Grey and are operating on the #9 trolley bus route.   Including the 99 B-Line buses, three-quarters of the seats on all the CMBC buses going to UBC are empty and there is far too much transit capacity even though the 99 B-Line is occasionally over crowded.

 

Over crowding occurs on the 99 B-Line route because CMBC is operating the 99 B-Line buses at exceedingly high frequencies every two to five minutes, generally, while CMBC operates other buses at low frequencies – every 10 minutes to 15 minutes, for the #14 trolley bus route, for instance (see attached bus timetable).  This forces transit users onto the 99 B-Line and off the other buses going to UBC to make transit use much greater on the 99 B-Line than on the other bus routes.

 

If TransLink operated all buses to UBC at the same frequency (10 minutes during daytime and 20 minutes after 7 pm) empty 99 B-Line and other buses would not be prevalent.  Existing buses would be more than adequate for the demand to UBC and over crowding on the 99 B-Line buses to UBC would not be occurring.

 

TransLink has cancelled desperately required transit service for Surrey, Langley and Delta to maintain 10 unnecessary diesel bus routes to UBC.  Approximately 100 diesel buses including all the articulated 99 B-Line diesel buses could be freed up for use in Surrey, Langley and Delta if CMBC operated the trolley buses which TransLink is not using or under utilizing on the trolley bus routes in Point Grey.

 

Politically, the 99 B-Line service is intentionally being made to operate with too many riders for TransLink to make a spectacle of the over crowding on the 99 B-Line buses in order for TransLink to obtain funding to expand SkyTrain to UBC and elsewhere.  Over crowding on the 99 B-Line route could be fixed easily by simply tweaking the bus routes to UBC to make better use of the available buses.  Over crowding on the 99 B-Line route would have been resolved long ago if CMBC and TransLink wanted it resolved.

 

 

TransLink Gravy Train

Transit by TransLink is set up to benefit the administrators providing transit rather than the transit users riding transit.  Almost one-third of the revenue ($1,382 million in 2011) collected by TransLink from taxpayers and transit users goes to pay for TransLink administration and TransLink bureaucracy (refer to pages 81 and 82 of the efficiency review by Shirocca Consulting and Appendix 2A on page 60 of the 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook by TransLink):

 

http://translinkcommission.org/TransLink_Efficiency_Review_Mar_21-12_FINAL.pdf

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/10_year_plan/2012_plans/2012_supplemental_plan_moving_forward.ashx

 

Transit in Metro Vancouver would definitely be much better and less costly if municipal engineers modeled, designed and planned transit to eliminate TransLink, which is a superfluous organization serving no real purpose in the day to day operation of transit.  Positively, if TransLink were eliminated, municipalities in Metro Vancouver could easily operate transit directly.  Of course, the elimination of TransLink does not appeal to TransLink.  Rather, TransLink is raising transit fares by 10% and canceling transit service to Surrey, Langley and Delta.

 

You’d expect the CEO of TransLink or the President and GM of CMBC to be highly qualified, maybe holding an electrical or a mechanical engineering degree requiring tons of calculus, statistics and science as well as a second degree in the humanities for good communication.  This would allow the CEO at TransLink to evaluate transit specifications intelligently and to pick the best transit for the money while it would allow the President and GM of CMBC to evaluate bus specifications intelligently and to pick the best bus for the money and the application.

 

Unfortunately, the CEO of TransLink, Ian Jarvis is an inept accountant.  He is making four times his market value and is bent on mucking up transit further in Metro Vancouver with another SkyTrain line to Coquitlam (Evergreen Line).  Moreover, you as the President and GM of CMBC are “not an engineer” and lack the qualifications to operate CMBC efficiently and prudently.

 

 

Transit in Point Grey

There are only three roads for transit to UBC in Point Grey.  Rather than operate 13 transit routes on the three roads to UBC with few riders on most of the buses, for most of the day, CMBC can consolidate the 13 routes into three bus routes along the three roads to UBC (West 4th Avenue, West 10th Avenue and West 16th Avenue) in order to free up buses for use where the buses are required in Surrey, Langley or Delta, for instance.

 

TransLink is currently by-passing downtown Vancouver to operate the 99 B-Line service.  TransLink will stop this at once.  TransLink will operate three trolley bus routes from downtown Vancouver to UBC to provide transit where the transit is required and to make better use of exiting buses going to UBC in order to free up diesel buses for Surrey, Langley and Delta.

 

Surely, no transit company in Canada other than TransLink operates an express “articulated” diesel bus service (99 B-Line) every few minutes late at night until 2:23 am followed by an early morning “articulated” diesel bus service until 3:36 am to university in the summer on an existing trolley bus route when the university is in recess and there is no demand for it (see attached 99 B-Line and N17 timetables).  Is everyone at TransLink daft?

 

Noise and vibration levels from diesel buses are amplified, at residences, by structures along West 10th Avenue and are too intense.  Particulate matter emissions from the 99 B-Line and N17 soot blowing diesel buses are trapped by elevated structures along West 10th Avenue are too high.  If CMBC can’t operate trolley buses 100% of the time on existing trolley bus routes in Point Grey, CMBC can stay out of Point Grey -  the City of Vancouver engineers can operate transit much better for a lot less money.

 

Residents in Point Grey are being harassed by diesel bus noise and the health of residents in Point Grey is being impaired by diesel bus emissions.  This will not continue any longer.  Remove all the diesel buses operating on the West 4th Avenue and West 10th Avenue trolley bus routes, immediately.

 

ec

My first question is, who are the flaggers and what are their relationships with Abbotsford City Hall? My second question is, why not install a simple stop light at the intersection?

The Vye Road rail intersection is a CPR and a Southern R.R. of BC crossing, consisting of just two tracks, just North of a CPR/SRR of BC interchange yard. I understand part of the problem has to do with switching at the yard, as there can’t be many daily rail services along this line.

An overpass, would certainly address the situation and with the ‘Gateway project’ throwing billions of dollars around for railway overpasses along the Supperport railway, maybe some money should be thrown at the Vye Street railway crossing. As for Rail for the Valley’s take on all this, a railway overpass over the former interurban route is just one less rail crossing to worry about for a reinstated interurban service.

In the end, just how many times a day do trains cross Vye St. and does it warrant upgraded, grade crossing protection? I do not know the answer for the first question, but the answer to the second is obviously yes.

City ordered to address railway-crossing safety

By Kevin Mills – Abbotsford News
Published: May 01, 2012

Abbotsford will now provide flag people at the Vye Road railway crossing.

 

The move comes after Transport Canada issued an order to the city to maintain a flagging crew there until public safety can be ensured.

 

The city received the notice on April 19, which indicated a risk to public safety due to excessive road traffic, ineffective traffic control and traffic ignoring posted stop signs. The order states Abbotsford must either provide traffic safety measures at the crossing through traffic control flagging, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., or completely close the crossing during the same time period.

 

City manager Frank Pizzuto said the flagging crew costs the city $500 per day.

 

“Flagging it is a really short-term solution,” he said.

 

A more cost-effective solution is being sought, including the installation of railway crossing arms which would alleviate many safety concerns.

 

Pizzuto said there is a cost-sharing program for railway arms which the city has applied for.

 

The Vye Road crossing has been an ongoing concern for years. A proposed overpass has been on the city’s priority projects list for years, but funding has never become available.

 

Pizzuto said another option being discussed for the future is to open up McConnell Road, by Costco, north of Vye Road. Railway arms could be placed on both roads and, potentially, one road could be open if the other was closed.

 

“The railway intersection would have to be reworked.”

The birds who call themselves transit planners at TransLink just haven’t a clue what they are doing and the only expertise they have is to squander the taxpayers monies on more obsolete transit infrastructure.

The sad part is that mayor Fassbender is completely out of his league when he discusses transit, as he has been ill advised on the issue. Certainly his provincial Liberal party credentials also are playing a part in this fiasco with his past, all too inept, pandering to TransLink, supporting higher taxes and user fees to pay for the politically inspired Evergreen SkyTrain Line.

As yea sows, so shall yea reap.

 The RapidBus project will be running eventually, Langley’s mayors insist

 By Matthew Claxton, Langley AdvanceMay 3, 2012

Connected Cities is a European Union [EU] investigation into the question of how we can provide unrestricted but sustainable transport and mobility to cities and regions in such a way that it will strengthen their territorial cohesion and improve the quality of life of its citizens.

http://connectedcities.eu/

The link is to the Connected Cities Project showcases index:

http://connectedcities.eu/showcases.html

Light Rail Transit, LRT & Tram-Trains feature highly

The following is an excerpt from the showcase on Tram-Train in France, Germany & the Netherlands,

click on the link at the end of the passage

Tram-train | Français
Regiotram | Deutsch
Light Rail | Nederlands

Tram and train used to be two entirely different public transport systems. Tram served shorter (read: urban) distances. Train served longer (read: regional) distances. But the difference between city and region has disappeared in much of Europe. The difference between tram and regional rail is blurring as well. A new generation of light rail transit vehicles can play the role of both tram and train. By doing so LRT offers an important breakthrough in the thinking on sustainable urban and regional mobility.

The Karlsruhe model

Karlsruhe’s Stadtbahn

The German city of Karlsruhe is where it all began. In the early nineties the municipal public transport authority or KVV managed to claim the right to use a number of regional rail lines, owned by the state. The use of these regional lines enabled the rapid expansion of the local light rail network. By that time such a move was unheard of. Transport theory told that tram and train systems were incompatible. Vehicles could not cross over from the one to the other network. It were the users of these systems that had to bridge the gap. But transferring between systems meant walking, waiting and too often loosing connections. The Karlsruhe model showed that technical differences and differences in management could be overcome. It also showed that combining the two networks in one operation leads to a significant increase of its use.

The regional tram

Some have interpreted the ‘Karlsruhe Model‘ mainly as a technical advance since the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn vehicles were adjusted to both low and high voltage systems as it combined both light and heavy rail. Some saw in the Karlsruhe example evidence that an above ground light-rail system could be a preferable alternative over an underground metro or S-Bahn. But its true significance is that Karlsruhe showed there is a regional future for the tram. The ‘Karlsruhe model’ showed that a tram can successfully operate over far greater distances than the 5-10 kilometre that most textbooks considered to be the maximum.

http://connectedcities.eu/showcases/lrt.html

The following URL links to an EU INTERREG report:

Light Rail & Metro Systems in Europe;

Current market, perspectives and research implications

http://connectedcities.eu/downloads/showcases/lrt_and_metro_in_eu.pdf

Impossible screamed the SkyTrain crowd; Karlsruhe can’t operate couples sets of trams, claimed a planner from TransLink.

Yet, 45 second headways, with a mix of single cars and coupled sets could give peak hour capacities in Karlsruhe well in excess of 40,000 persons per hour per direction.

Well the following quote from the Light Rail Transit Associations Topic Sheet No 5 – A Question of Capacity tells a different story.

THE CAPACITIES of different modes of

transport are generally quoted as

0-10 000 passengers per hour for bus,

2000-20 000 for light rail, and 15 000

upwards for heavy rail.

It is city centres where several routes combine

that the most capacity is required. A typical

situation could be a pedestrian street with six

routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36

double coupled trams per hour each with a

capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of

16 200 passengers per hour which can be

increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra

vehicles. Light rail is unique in this ability to

operate on the surface with its capacity without

detracting from the amenities which it serves

Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT8-l00c/2 cars.