Perils Of Driverless Operation

Really?

At first glance one wonders why?

Why the need for a bus bridge and huge inconvenience for light-metro customers?

The real problem is this, automatic (driverless) transit systems, for all the expensive kit, cannot deal with problems unlike a system with a driver.

The real problem is that the train may hit a person or animal causing damage to the automatic train control (inductive loops between the tracks) causing hours long delays.

This is one reason that in Europe, transit systems maybe driverless but they still have an attendant for just such an event.

Not in Vancouver because having an attendant on board each train would, of course, expose the myth of SkyTrain being cheap to operate because of driver free operation.

 

Burning Bus Blues

Before TransLink goes hog wild buying battery buses, there is a slight problem, the tend to catch fire.

 

 

Third electric London bus catches fire after two burst into flames earlier this month

Firefighters tackled the blaze in a bus garage in Putney

An electric bus has caught fire in London, making it the third to burst into flames in the capital this month.

Firefighters tackled the flames engulfing the single-deck bus at a bus garage on Chelverton Road in Putney on Wednesday.

Twenty people were evacuated from the garage before emergency services arrived on the scene.

A video posted on social media shows the large blaze inside Putney Bus Garage.

London Fire Brigade said part of the bus was damaged by fire.

In a statement, the service said: “Around 20 people left the building before firefighters arrived and there were no reports of any injuries.

“The Brigade’s 999 Control Officers received nine calls about the fire. The Brigade was called at 0821 and the fire was extinguished by 0913.

“Two fire engines from Fulham and Tooting Fire Stations attended the scene. The cause of the fire is under investigation.”

In a message to staff, Go Ahead said a “precautionary fleet check” of around 380 electric buses is now underway.

It added that the “events of this kind that took place inside our premises” on Wednesday “are very rare”.

On 11 January, a double-decker bus broke out into flames on Wimbledon Hill Road, south west London shortly after 7.20am.

Three fire engines and around 15 firefighters attended the scene and 25m cordon and road closures are in place, the London Fire Brigade said.

A second electric bus caught fire in North Woolwich, east London the following day, on 12 January.

The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus – LRT – Metro Comparison

From 2016

I have not reprinted this for a while, but I see a rise of anti-LRT cods-wallop on local and social media and a reply must be made.

Every year I reprint this post to remind everyone of the ability to move large amount of people at an affordable cost.

There is an ongoing debate today that LRT can only carry a limited number of riders and that the magic number for a subway is about 100,000 riders a day on a transit line. This may have been true in the 197’s, but not the 21st century, where modern multi-articulated low-floor light rail vehicles (tram is much easier to say!) are able to easily carry three or four times this number, thus negating the need for expensive subway construction, except on the most heavily used routes. The LRTA shows that modern LRT can carry over 20,000 pphpd in 1986 and in 2010, in Karlsruhe Germany, one tram or LRT line on Kaisserstrasse was seeing traffic flows over 35,000 pphpd.

Karlsruhe also shows what the threshold for traffic flows necessitating subway construction in Germany, after many very expensive lessons with subways built on lesser routes.

Those who demand a SkyTrain Broadway subway should take note.

The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus  LRT Metro Comparison

The following is from the Light Rail Transit Associations hand book Light Rail Transit Today, comparing the operating parameters of bus, light rail, and metro on an unimpeded 8 kilometre route with stations every 450 metres. Using real data based on acceleration, deceleration, dwell time, etc., the study gives real time information for the three transit modes.

Please note: This study has been abridged for brevity and clarity.

The study assumes a vehicle capacity for a bus at 90 persons; LRT 240 persons (running in multiple unit doubles capacity); and metro at 1000 persons.

The time to over the 8 km. route would be:

1. Bus  22.4 minutes
2. LRT 18 .6 minutes
3. Metro 16.3 minutes

The Round trip time, including a 5 minute layover:

1. Bus  54.8 minutes
2. LRT  47.2 minutes
3. Metro 42.6 minutes

The comparative frequency of service in relation to passenger flows would be:

At 2,000 persons per hour per direction:

1. Bus  2.7 minute headway’s, with 22 trips.
2. LRT  7.5 minute headway’s, with 8 trips.
3. LRT (2-car)  15 minute headway’s, with 4 trips.
4. Metro 30 minute headway’s, with 2 trips.

At 6,000 pphpd:

1. 1 Bus 0.9 minute headway’s, with 67 trips.
2. LRT 2.4 minute headway’s, with 17 trips.
3. LRT (2-car)  4.8 minutes, with 13 trips.
4. Metro 10 minute headway’s with 6 trips.

At 10,000 pphpd:

1. Bus 30 second headway’s, with 111 trips (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
2. LRT 1.4 minute headway’s, with 42 trips.
3. LRT (2 car)  2.8 minute headway’s, 21 trips
4. Metro 6 minute headway’s, 10 trips.

At 20,000 pphpd:

1. LRT  0.7 minute headway’s, with 83 trips.
2. LRT (2 car)  1.4 minute headway’s, with 42 trips.
3. Metro 3 minute headway’s, with 20 trips.

Comparative Staff Requirements on vehicles in relation to passenger flows. Station staff in brackets ().

At 2,000 pphpd:

1. Bus  21 (0)
2. LRT  7 (0)
3. LRT (2 car)  4 (0)
4. metro  2 (up to 38)

At 6,000 pphpd:

1. Bus  61 (0)
2. LRT  20 (0)
3. LRT (2 car)  10 (0)
4. Metro  5 (up to 38)

At 10,000 pphpd:

1. Bus  110 (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical) (0).
2. LRT  34 (0)
3. LRT (2 car)  17 (0)
4. Metro 8 (up to 38)

At 20,000 pphpd:

1. LRT  69 (0)
2. LRT (2 car) 34 (0)
3. Metro  15 (up to 38)

Though the study is 38 years old and completed before the advent of low-floor trams (which decreased dwell times), it still give a good comparison of employee needs for each mode. Metro, especially automatic metro systems do require a much larger maintenance staff than for bus or LRT and when one factors in the added high cost of subway or viaduct construction plus higher operational costs, Metro only become a viable proposition when traffic flows exceed 16,000 pphpd to 20,000 pphpd on a transit route.

Claims from other blogs that automatic metros can operate more frequent headway’s than LRT are untrue; automatic metros can not operate at higher frequencies than LRT, but if Metro is operated at close headway’s in times of low traffic flows, they do so with a penalty in higher maintenance costs and operational costs.

Taking into account the almost universal use of low-floor trams, operating in reserved rights-of-ways, combined with advances in safe signal priority at intersections; given an identical transit route with equal stations or stops, LRT operating on the surface (on-street) would be just as fast as a metro operating either elevated or in a subway at a fraction of the overall cost grade separated R-o-W’s. Also, automatic (driverless) metros, though not having drivers have attendants and station staff, which negate any claim that automatic metros use less staff than light rail.

The LRTA study does give good evidence why LRT has made light-metros such a as SkyTrain and VAL obsolete.

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/

The Bergen Line

The Bergen Line or the Bergen Railway (Norwegian: Bergensbanen or Nynorsk: Bergensbana), is a 371-kilometre (231 mi) long scenic standard gauge railway line between Bergen and Hønefoss, Norway. The name is often applied for the entire route from Bergen via Drammen to Oslo, where the passenger trains go, a distance of 496 kilometres (308 mi). It is the highest mainline railway line in Northern Europe, crossing the Hardangervidda plateau at 1,237 metres (4,058 ft) above sea level.

The railway opened from Bergen to Voss in 1883 as the narrow gauge Voss Line. In 1909 the route was continued over the mountain to Oslo and the whole route converted to standard gauge, and the Voss Line became part of the Bergen Line. The line is single track, and was electrified in 1954–64. The Bergen Line is owned and maintained by Bane NOR, and served with passenger trains by Vy Tog and freight trains by CargoNet. The Flåm Line remains as the only branch line, after the closure of the Hardanger Line. The western section from Bergen to Voss is also served by the Bergen Commuter Rail, and was shortened following the 1966 opening of the Ulriken Tunnel.

The scenery is spectacular and this video is worth a watch.

Please cut and paste.

New Skoda Trams

Let’s Take The train From Narvik – The Ofoten Line

I have become somewhat addicted to the HD driver’s view cams of Scandinavia, especially Norway and Sweden. The Ofoten Line is a must see video! The scenery is stark, rugged and awe inspiring. The single track Ofoten Line sees  tourist trains, regular passenger trains, freight trains and twenty-four or more ore trains use daily!

The following is from Wikipedia.

The Ofoten Line (Norwegian: Ofotbanen) is a 43-kilometre (27 mi) railway line in Narvik, Norway. It runs from the Port of Narvik to Riksgränsen on the Norway–Sweden border, where the line continues as the Ore Line via Kiruna and Gällivare to Luleå. The Ofoten Line is single track, electrified at 15 kV  16.7 Hz AC and has seven stations. The line only connects to the rest of the Norwegian railway network via Sweden. The main traffic is up to 12 daily freight trains operated by Malmtrafik that haul iron ore from Sweden to Narvik. In addition, CargoNet operates container trains, branded as the Arctic Rail Express (ARE), and Vy Tåg operates passenger trains, including a night train to Stockholm.

Construction of the Ofoten Line started in 1898 along with the Ore Line from Riksgränsen to Kiruna. They were completed in 1902, allowing LKAB to haul ore from their mines in Kiruna to the ice-free Port of Narvik. Operation and ownership of the line was held by the Norwegian State Railways. The line was electrified in 1915 and Norwegian State Railways (NSB) started using El 3 and El 4 locomotives. During World War II, the ore traffic stopped because of the Battles of Narvik and the bombing of the town. In the following decades, NSB introduced El 12 and El 15 locomotives. In 1996, operation of the ore trains was taken over by Malmtrafik, which was controlled by and now is a subsidiary of the mining company LKAB. The same year, ownership of the railway line was transferred to the newly created Norwegian National Rail Administration. The line has been upgraded to 30 tonnes (30 long tons; 33 short tons) axle loads, allowing the new Iore locomotives to haul 8,600 tonnes (8,500 long tons; 9,500 short tons) trains.

For the full video, please clip and paste

 

The Foynes-Limerick Rail Line

If you want to reduce auto use, you must provide a affordable and user -friendly alternative.

The Irish government believes that and is rebuilding a former rail line as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly way to provide affordable and user-friendly transportation. The cost is €104 million (CAD $152 million) for 42 km of reinstated rail line!

This works out to about $10.75 million/km to reinstate the Foynes Line as a passenger carrying railway.

Rail is that affordable and user-friendly alternative.

Using existing railways and railway formations is a lot cheaper than building “greenfields”.

Estimated cost for Rail for the Valley’s “Return of the Interurban”, around $1.75 billion for over 130 km.

Cost of Broadway subway, $2.7 billion, for 5.7 km.

E&N Railway, 230 km, plus, estimated cost $3 billion.

Cost of the Langley extension of the Expo Line, 16 km $4.42 billion (includes inflation from the 2001 estimate).

For the cost of 21.7 km extensions of the Evergreen and Millennium Lines, we could build the Valley Interurban and rehab the E&N Railway and still have $2.7 billion to improve transit in metro Vancouver!

 

 

A Cost Comparison of Transportation Modes

A Cost Comparison of Transportation Modes

The 2009 study by UBC Professor Patrick Condon, the James Taylor chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture and the founding chair of the UBC Urban Design program can be read by clicking on the title.

Though the SkyTrain light metro line may have a lower operating cost (TransLink does a wonderful job of manipulating numbers), the total Costs per Passenger-Mile are exceedingly large. As the SkyTrain light metro system ages, so do the total passenger-mile costs.

It is also worth remembering that TransLink was in partnership with Bombardier to sell SkyTrain abroad!

In 2009 one US Dollar was worth approximately  CAD $2.80  (based on a $1.05 exchange rate) and in today’s money $3.86.

What is even more telling is the cost per trip of USD $12.34 per passenger mile or CAD $12.95 or $17.02 in today’s money.

This study tends to be the studies which transit authorities read before making a choice of mode and product and as one can see, SkyTrain is extremely expensive for what it does. also it is wise to remember that light rail has a higher capacity than SkyTrain, something Toronto’s TTC found our in 1982!

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM RAIL FOR THE VALLEY

HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM RAIL FOR THE VALLEY

 

If you tell a SkyTrain lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

This is an updated post from 2009.

 

The title quote by Joseph Goebbels, famed Nazi propagandist, aptly describes the SkyTrain lobby’s and BC Transit/TransLink’s thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell SkyTrain and discredit modern light rail. The many pro-SkyTrain blog sites that offer little in fact, but much unfounded rhetoric. All the bumf spewed hides one singular fact; that SkyTrain has been rejected by transit planners around the world.

If you tell a SkyTrain lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The SkyTrain lie can be maintained only for such time as the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit can shield the people from the political, economic and/or environmental consequences of the SkyTrain lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the  provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the SkyTrain lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit .

Why is it important for Rail for the Valley to expose the SkyTrain myth for what it is? Simple, it’s all about money. SkyTrain consumes up to ten times or more the money to build, per route kilometre than light rail; put another way, the taxpayer may get up to one tenth, or less,, transit by building with SkyTrain instead of LRT! For any chance of a Valley interurban service, Rail for the Valley must put a ‘wooden stake’ through the heart of SkyTrain and give no quarter to its adherents. It’s ugly business, but for the future of the region, it must be done.

Zweisystem will make two predictions:

1) If the province forces TransLink to build a SkyTrain subway to UBC, there will be NO interurban for the valley.

2) If a SkyTrain subway is built, the municipalities without SkyTrain may secede from TransLink and form their own transit authority or rejoin with BC Transit. (If that happens, watch for $1000.00 to $1,500.00 property tax hikes for the remaining, SkyTrain and metro served cities, including Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Tri-Cities, New Westminster and North Surrey).

The Rail for the Valley blog follows the course of modern public transit development as reported in the transit press and what we are told by experts. And one must remember, SkyTrain is sponsored by the Province through the Premier’s office and TransLink and unfortunately those who support light rail and not SkyTrain are seen as enemies of the provincial government, TransLink and the Mayors Council on Transit!

The choice for future transit in the region should be this:

SkyTrain metro, with costs starting at $250 million/km.

or

Light rail with costs as low as $10 million/km (tramtrain)

or as low as $20 million/km. (streetcar)

or as low as $35 million/km. (LRT)

Let the public decide!