The Failure To Understand Modern Light Rail = Public Transit Chaos

‘Zwei’ has been taken aback by the viciousness of the SkyTrain Lobby and the great lengths they haveAi??Ai??taken in discrediting the LRT, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the marketing failure of the proprietary (ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART ) light-metro system, known in Vancouver as SkyTrain.

‘Zwei’ is also taken aback by abject refusalAi??Ai??by many supposed experts to take the time to clearly understand modern light rail and/or modern LRT philosophy, Ai??Ai??instead treating itAi??Ai??the same as a glorified bus or a poor-man’s metro. Ai??Ai??As well, ‘Zwei is dumbfounded, byAi??Ai??many of the sameAi??Ai??supposed transit experts who do not understand the fundamentals of transit and or rail operation, especially from a customers point of view.Ai??Ai??In Metro Vancouver, manyAi??Ai??planning bureaucratsAi??Ai??abjectlyAi??Ai??refuse to acknowledge that Ai??Ai??modern light rail is a very strongAi??Ai??tool to mitigate congestion and pollution, whichAi??Ai??only exacerbates ourAi??Ai??regional transportation planning ennui.

A good example of not understanding ‘rail‘ operation are those who continue to pontificate that automatic transit systems have fewer employees, therefore cheaper to operate than light rail. This simplistic view is wrong andAi??Ai??except when traffic flows are in the order of 20,000 pphpd or more, then thereAi??Ai??are noticeable cost savings in automatic operation. The notion that automatic metros can operate 24/7 is just that, a notion as driverless metro need dailyAi??Ai??‘down time’ to adjust and check the signaling system for if something goes wrong, the driverless metro stops and until a real persons checks the system to see why the metro stopped and if it is safe to continue operation, will operation be started again.

Unlike LRT, with an on-board driver, automatic metros need a full complement of staff to operate at all hours to ensure the safety of passengers, on trains and in stations. Many LRT operations have service 24 hours a day and with the simplicity of the transit mode, very few staff are needed. Contrary to what many ‘bloggist’s’ post, modern light rail is much cheaper to operate than metro and driverless metro.

The hysterical wailings of those wishing grade separated transit systems also ignore the fact that moder LRT is one of the safest public transit modes in the world. The fact that SkyTrain has a higher annual death rate than comparable LRT operations is forgotten in their zeal to discredit modern trams. Yes, cars do crash into trams. Yes, car drivers do disobey stop signals and deliberately drive across tram lines in the path of an oncoming trams, with predictable results. Yet tram/LRT/streetcar road intersections are about ten times safer than a road – road intersection. In Europe, if a car driver ignores a stop signal and is in an accident with a tram, the car driver is heavily fined and may lose his right to drive. In Europe, autos seldom come to grief with a tram, as the legal consequences colliding with a tram is a strong deterrent.

The speed issue is another ‘man of straw’ argument as those who want SkyTrain. TheyAi??Ai??bang the ‘speed‘ drum loudly proclaimingAi??Ai??that SkyTrain is fast and speed trumps all in attracting ridership. Speed of ones journey is just one facet of the many reasons why people opt to take public transit.Ai??Ai??What is true, itAi??Ai??is that theAi??Ai??overall ambiance and convenience of a ‘rail‘ transit system hasAi??Ai??proven moreAi??Ai??importantAi??Ai??attracting new ridership. Contrary to what many believe,Ai??Ai??elevated and underground transit stations tend to deter ridership. The speed issue is a non-issue and fact is, if the Vancouver to Chilliwack tramtrain comes into operation, it will have a much faster commercial speed than SkyTrain, yet Zwei would never make the claim that tramtrain would be better because it was faster!

Studies have shown (Hass-Klau Bus or Light Rail, Making The right Choice)Ai??Ai??that in urban areas the most beneficial distance between transit stops is 450m to 600m and with any greater distances between stopsAi??Ai??tends to deterAi??Ai??ridership and stops closer than 450m tend to be too slow. Those want a fast subway under Broadway are commuting from the far reaches of the SkyTrain and or bus network and one would question why they would live so far away to commute to UBC, if they are at all?

In the real world, transit systems are designed and built to economically move people, not so in Vancouver where transit is built toAi??Ai??cater to the needs of land use, thus we continue to build hugely expensive metro lines on low ridership routes (for metro), whereAi??Ai??selected property owners make windfall profits from up-zoning residential properties to higher density condos and apartments. This is a ‘fools paradise’, because we are spending up to ten times more to install a metro onAi??Ai??transit routes that don’t have the ridership to sustain a metro, while at the same time failing upgrade manyAi??Ai??bus routes to LRT to cater to higher passenger flows, which now demand greater operational economies.Ai??Ai??Much neededAi??Ai??transit upgrades and improvements in the region go wanting to fulfill the extremely expensive and questionable SkyTrain/land use dream on only a few routes.

The failure to understand modernAi??Ai??light rail is leading the region into a massive financial black hole, by continually building extremely expensive metro while at the same time treating LRT as a yesterday’s transit mode. Today, Vancouver’s transit fares areAi??Ai??some of the highest in North AmericaAi??Ai??and fares will continue to rise, largely in part due to SkyTrain and light-metro. TransLink willAi??Ai??continue to be inAi??Ai??financial peril ifAi??Ai??planning bureaucratsAi??Ai??continues to plan and build with metro on the Evergreen Line and the Broadway subway.

Modern light rail has been crafted, with over 125 years of public transit experience, to fulfillAi??Ai?? human transit and transportation needs, unlike our automatic SkyTrain light metro, which original design and selling point was to mitigate the massive costs of heavy-rail metro in an age before modern LRT. To put SkyTrain in a subway is an oxymoron and demonstrates the modes proponents gross ignorance of transit history; to continue to build SkyTrain on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain metro demonstrates complete fiscal irresponsibility.

As Zweisystem has always observed, “Those who fail to read public transit history are doomed to make the same very expensive mistakes.”

The failure to understand the role of modern LRT, streetcars and trams, will lead the region into transit and transportation chaos, where the much needed ‘rail‘ network will be but patches of expensive politically prestigious metro linesAi??Ai??linked by buses: impractical, unsustainable, and fool-hardy.

Broadway Transit meeting – June 22

Business and Residents Association for Sustainable Alternative Transport re:

Broadway and w 10th proposed Translink
Community meeting on June 22nd 7.30 P.M.

St. James Community Centre, West 10th Ave and Trutch.

Speakers includeAi??Ai?? Patrick Condon of UBC
Mel Lehan, localAi??Ai??NDP candidate and comm. organizer.

All welcome

The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus – LRT – Metro Comparison

The followingAi??Ai??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 -Ai??Ai??47.2Ai??Ai??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 headways,Ai??Ai??with 22 trips.
2. LRT -Ai??Ai??7.5 Ai??Ai??minute headways, with 8 trips.
3. LRT (2-car) – 15 minute headways, with 4 trips.
4. Metro – 30 minute headways, with 2 trips.

At 6,000 pphpd:

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

At 10,000 pphpd:

1. Bus – 30 second headways, with 111 tripsAi??Ai??(traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
2. LRT – 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
3. LRT (2 car) – 2.8 minute headways, 21 trips
4. Metro – 6 minute headways, 10 trips.

At 20,000 pphpd:

1. LRT – 0.7 minute headways, with 83 trips.
2. LRT (2 car) – 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
3. Metro – 3 minute headways, with 20 trips.

Comparative Staff Requirements on vehicles in relationAi??Ai??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 24 years old and completed before the advent of low-floor trams (whichAi??Ai??decreased dwell times), it still give a good comparison of employee needs for each mode. Metro’s, especially automatic metro systems do require a much largerAi??Ai?? 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.Ai??

Claims from other blogs that automatic metros can operate more frequent headways than LRT are untrue; automatic metros can not operate at higher frequencies than LRT, but ifAi??Ai??Metro isAi??Ai??operated at close headways 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 withAi??Ai??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 RoW’s. Also, Ai??Ai??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.

A Poll That the Main Stream Media Ignored. Can We Expect The Same For Other Non SkyTrain ‘Rail’ Projects?

A very strange thing happenedAi??yesterday with ‘Zwei’. When I was discussing a transit matter with an US transit type about the RAV/Canada line. He told me that TransLink officials claimed that over 80% of Vancouverites supported RAV and if it were not for the high costs of the metro, many more metro type transit systems would have been built in the USA.

I replied that “Well no; TransLink likes to claim 80% support, but their polling results are questionable.”

I have dug up the followingAi??2004 contrary poll from Robbins Research and emailed it to him and I thought it should be posted on RFV as well. What is interesting is that there is such a wide gap between this poll and TransLink’s claims.

With the Broadway Follies now in full swing, it must be remembered that what TransLink claims, isn’t necessarily true and that we should treat what TransLinkAi??Ai??or Vancouver City bureaucrats claim about public support for SkyTrain, the RAV/Canada Line and the upcoming,Ai?? SkyTrain Broadway ‘Rapid Transit’ Line as we would treat a Nigerian Email.

From Robbins Sce Research

Ai??http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/

A random sample of 405 Vancouverites on May 14, 2004, It features a margin or error of 4.2%, 18 times out of 20, @97% competency.

Question #1Recently, the Board of Directors of Translink voted down RAV, with the opposing votes claiming that it was too costly, and that it may ultimately overburden taxpayers. Do you agree with THIS opposition to RAV?

Yes		72.6Ai??%
No		27.4Ai??%

Question #2Would you regularly use light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport?

Yes		35.3%
No		64.7%

Question #3How likely would you be to EVER use a light rapid transit means of transportation between Vancouver/Richmond and/or the Vancouver Airport?

Very Likely		33.6%
Likely		10.7%
Not very likely at all		55.8%

Question #4The Vancouver Board of Trade, The BC Business Council, Premier Gordon Campbell, and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon are all demanding that the Translink Board reconsider their vote on RAV. Mayor Larry Campbell voted for RAV, Vancouver City Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie voted against the proposed RAV. Whose position do you agree with?

Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell		31.4%
Vancouver Councilors David Cadman and Raymond Louie		68.7%

Question #5In your opinion, what direction should Translink now take with respect to light rapid transit between Vancouver-Richmond and the Vancouver Airport?

Scrap the whole concept, we don’t really need it and its all too expensive		14.9%
We should construct light rapid transit between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport for under 1 billion dollars with NO cost overruns to be born by the taxpayer		81.8%
We should construct the original RAV line for between 1.5 billion and 2 billion dollars just as was planned		3.5%

Commentary

Commentary-No matter how you choose to look at the light rapid transit issue between Vancouver Richmond and the Airport, it is clear that the original E?Cadillac” RAV must be kept off the table for ever. Its too expensive, and taxpayers do not want to be exposed to additional taxes owing to cost overruns.

It is obvious there is a need to light rapid transit to the airport; however it remains interesting how many respondents who said they would use RAV want to know what they would do with their luggage. This is the same question which was raised by Airport workers in a previous poll of Richmond residents.

Media coverage of last weeks loss on the RAV vote, including Surrey Mayor and Translink Chair Doug McCallum, Vancouver Board of Trade and BC Business Council representatives, Rezac and Lampert, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon, complaining about the outcome is becoming very offensive to right thinking British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that these individuals are not thinking in the interests of the citizens they purport to represent, or in the case of the two special interest representatives, ANY voting citizens.

Why do the media persist in speaking to special interest groups on subjects that those groups or organizations have no democratic interest in? I put the same criticism on the Canadian Taxpayers Association debating with H.E.U. members. This RAV debate if not modified to a dialogue that makes sense to the voter, and the consumer, runs the risk of further turning this province into a political Ozark. Mr. Falcon’s comments that 80% of the public want RAV are dishonest.http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_71.html

The SkyTrain Lobby Just Can’t Debate Transit Issues

The followingAi??Ai??letter to the Georgia Straight sums up transit planning in Vancouver and the region, an almost mythicalAi??Ai??blind faith in the SkyTrain light-metro and the complete inability to debate transit issues. The SkyTrain lobby’s preference is based purely on mass hysteria not technical merit and the commentsAi??Ai??following letter clearly illustrates a hysterical response; there is no level headed debate. The reason for building light-metro in Vancouver as SkyTrain and it’s diminutive metro cousin, the Canada Line, in Greater Vancouver was purely political; what was best for political ambitions of the day and not what was best for regional transit, the transit customer or the taxpayer.

That LRT may or may not be the best option on Broadway is open to debate but the hysterical lies, deceit and deliberate misinformation about aAi??Ai??LRT option, not only diminishes the debates but it shows the ignorance of the SkyTrain lobby as they can’t honestly debate about transit and transportation issues at the same timeAi??Ai??making international fools of themselves.

Ai??Ai??

Ai??Ai??NewAi??Ai??Broadway SkyTrain would be true farce

The Broadway Follies, or should I say the UBC rapid-transit planning, have started, with TransLink intentionally fumbling the ball from the starting gate [A?ai??i??Ai??Vancouver council approves guiding principles for Broadway rapid transit planningA?ai??i??A?, Web-only]. The decision has been made: itA?ai??i??ai???s going to be a subway, because the term A?ai??i??Ai??rapid transitA?ai??i??A? is defined as a subway. LRT [light rail transit] need not apply!

It is the same tiresome game plan that the city, TransLink, and B.C. Transit before have used in the past, with the same tired old clichA?Ai??s supporting a subway. The trouble is, we have moved on; SkyTrain has been made obsolete by modern LRT, and subways, due to their high cost, are avoided where possible. The problem is, TransLink is not listening. Claims that SkyTrain is faster (it isnA?ai??i??ai???t), that subways attract more ridership (they donA?ai??i??ai???t), and that automatic metros cost less to operate because they donA?ai??i??ai???t have drivers (the opposite is true) border on professional misconduct.

SkyTrain, which was conceived to mitigate massive subway construction costs, is now being sold as a subway. The transit farce continues. The cost of a Broadway UBC subway? About $3 billion to $4 billion, or enough money to fund a deluxe Vancouver-to-Chilliwack tram train and a BCITA?ai??i??ai???toA?ai??i??ai???UBCA?ai??i??ai???andA?ai??i??ai???Stanley Park LRT, and an Evergreen Line LRT, and LRT in Surrey! Even more strange is the fact that Vancouver is one of only seven cities that operate SkyTrain.

http://www.straight.com/article-323606/vancouver/new-broadway-skytrain-would-be-true-farce

The new Ottawa LRT Will save $100 Million in Operating Costs Over 30 Years!

As with all projects in Canada’s Capital, the New LRT line is heavily gold-plated, including a nearly billion dollar, 3.2 km. tunnel under the city. Just a few years ago, Ottawa’s city fathers canceled a 29.7 km., $780 million light rail line contract with Siemens (which cost the city $36.7 million), to build light rail and instead went with a truncated 12.5 km., $2.1 billion subway/Bombardier line. What is interesting though, the new LRT line will save over $100 million in operating costs bus substituting bus services by rail.

With the Broadway transit debate now in full fury, TransLink has yet to offer any real figures for the operating costs of bus; light rail; or metro/subway. Initial figures from Ottawa has shown that LRT can be built quite cheaply, but the quaint Canadian penchant for drastically increasing costs for urban ‘rail’ transit, drives up costs to suit the needs of politicians and bureaucrats.

We know that modern light rail is reasonably inexpensive to build and operate, yet the powers that be still gold-plate transit projects, which doesn’t benefit anyone except suppliers, Engineers, Architects and Union workers, leaving the poor Canadian the taxpayer holding the bag.

LRT to cost $32.7M to operate annually

Published on May 14th, 2010

Peter Kovessy

Ottawa Business Journal

With critics still questioning the affordability of constructing Ottawa’s $2.1-billion light-rail line, a new report says the rapid transit network will cost $981 million to operate over its first three decades.

By 2031, the 12.5-kilometre rail line is estimated to save the city $100 million in operating costs annually as buses are substituted with high-capacity trains that require lower fuel and labour costs, according to a business plan prepared by a consultant for the city.

While the report included the estimated total operating costs added up over 30 years, it did not include any figures for projected revenue, except to say that a detailed operating plan would be drafted at a later date.

However, a city spokesperson noted council has directed that 50 per cent of the LRT’s operating costs be covered by farebox revenues.

The new Tunney’s Pasture-to-Blair Station rail line, including a 3.2-kilometre downtown tunnel, is projected to cost $2.1 billion to construct. Municipal officials had hoped the cost would be split evenly by the three levels of government, but Queen’s Park has only committed $600 million.

Transit committee chairperson Alex Cullen, who is running for mayor is this fall’s municipal election, says the city can pay for the plan even if the federal government only matches the provincial contribution.

“We can well afford to do that”,he said in an interview Friday.

The business plan says that if funding is secured A?ai??i??Ai??expeditiously,A?ai??i??A? preliminary design work would commence this year with construction beginning in 2013, starting with the tunnel and underground stations, and continuing for six years.

The construction project is projected to generate $3.2 billion in economic benefits and create 20,000 person-years of employment.

The 98-page business plan was prepared by Toronto-based Metropolitan Knowledge International in collaboration with Delcan Corp.

http://www.obj.ca/Local/City-Hall/2010-05-14/article-1094778/LRT-to-cost-$32.7M-to-operate-annually/1

Has TransLink Already Struck The Finacial Iceberg?

The Broadway Follies Part 4 – The Versatile Light Rail

TheAi??Ai??entire transit debate for the Broadway route has been defined by the SkyTrain Lobby as a quest for speed, as if speed was the only criteria for a successful urban ‘rail‘ line. Yet speed of a transit system is onlyAi??Ai??one ofAi??Ai??many factors that determine a successful ‘rail‘ transit line. From the Haas-Klau study (Bus or Light Rail – Making the right Choice), it was found that the over all ambiance of a transit system, ease of use, & ease of ticketing were more important than speed. Yet the SkyTrain lobby, abetted byAi??Ai??the manyAi??Ai??pro metroAi??Ai??blogs, persist with this notion that speed and only speed is important for attracting ridership.

The SkyTrain lobby has completely ignored the singular fact that the owner of the proprietary SkyTrain ART light-metro system has neverAi??Ai??allowed it compete head to head against light rail in a planning competition, but only sells the mode in private deals with little or no public debate. The sameAi??Ai??isAi??Ai??true with the VAL mini-metro system in France, but when faced withAi??Ai??competition fromAi??Ai??light rail, cities planning forAi??Ai??’rail‘ transit gaveAi??Ai??VAL second prize.

Why thenAi??Ai??when competing on aAi??Ai??‘level playing field’ LRT beats out the competition?

It is LRT’s universal versatility that makes the mode so popular with transit planners and operators. With modern light rail, there are many functions thatAi??Ai??light railAi??Ai??can do besides traveling there and back on an expensive elevated or much more expensive subway.

That LRT complements tourism has been long recognized by transit planners and most new light-rail/tram lines include vintage tram operation. Not only does vintage tramAi??Ai??operationAi??Ai??make a city moreAi??Ai??tourist-friendly, it complements businesses adjacent to the LRT line. Many cities hold month long or more vintageAi??Ai??trolley or tram festivals, where yesterdays streetcars and trams from around the world operate (in revenue service) on light rail routes in off peak hours, to the delight of all.

Tram/LRT tracks are much easier to relocate than subways or elevated guideways, thus a light rail system can grow and accommodate transit customers needs now or in the future. A good example would be a short stub line from the proposed Broadway line, connecting to Vancouver General Hospital, providing a direct ‘hospital‘ service, at minimal cost which would guarantee to attract ridership. The same sort of sort stub line is used extensively to provide tram services to important transit destinations which are located somewhat inconvenientlyAi??Ai??away from a transit line, such as sports stadiums, etc.

Restaurant or dinner trams have proven successful in a few cities around the world, most notably in Melbourne Australia.Ai??Ai??A restaurant tram is aAi??Ai??very unique venue,Ai??Ai??with patrons havingAi??Ai??dinner while the tram trundles along various tram lines. Again, a simple tram line is exploited for service other than conveying commuters, adding to the ambiance of the LRT system and its surrounds.

One of the more interesting developments of modern LRT is the cargo tram or tramAi??Ai??vehicles specially designed to haul containers. A BCIT to UBC LRT, operating cargo trams to and from UBC and BCITAi??Ai??and having a central transfer point along the line could possibly take several hundred diesel trucks and vans off the city streets daily, reducing congestion and noxious diesel fumes, especially in the more traffic sensitive Kitsilano districtAi??Ai??in Vancouver’s West side.

Several LRT/tram operation in Europe offer a bicycle trolley for conveying bicycles on longer trips. By using a bicycle trolley, customers inside the tram are not inconvenienced by cyclists and there is always plenty of room on the bicycleAi??Ai??trolley, so the cyclist is not inconvenienced by long waits when space inside trams is limited, especially at peak hours.

Unlike the dinner tram, which offers a specialized restaurant service, offering a unique venue: the Bistro car is a tram car fitted with a small kitchen and bar, offering light refreshments and snacksAi??Ai??for transit customers. Used on longer haul tram routes (Karlsruhe’s longest tram route is 210km), the Bistro carAi??Ai??offers a pleasant place to pass one’s time on a tram journey.

If light rail is built on Broadway, it will bring with it the ability to do many jobs, other than just move people to and fro. The modern tram can mover freight or convey dinner guests in a specialized cars; the modern tram can adapt to customer needs such as offering a cycle trolley or a Bistro car; modern light rail canAi??Ai??network to more destinations thus providing an affordable and efficient alternative to the car. Modern LRT can and will define the Broadway corridor as a more user-friendly and merchant-friendly place for decades to come.

So when the SkyTrain lobby go on and on about speed being the only reason to build transit, what they are really saying is that they want an inferior and dated product and are afraid the the public will discover that modern LRT is an extremely versatile transit mode able to accomplish many tasks, without much effort.

Pub Fundraiser

Hello everyone,

Rail for the Valley is hosting a fundraiser at Corkey’s pub in Chilliwack on May 21, from 5pm-8pm (there will be live music after 8).

This will be a great opportunity to meet with fellow advocates and to simply have a good time. I hope to see you there!

May 21 5pm-8pm

Corkey’s Pub Chilliwack

$10 = Burger and fries (you can purchase tickets in advance, just let me know, I deliver!)

Facebook event link:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=115151648523819

When Trolleybus and Streetcar Cross Paths

In answer to a query from a regular poster, ‘Zwei’ has found a picture of a Russian trolleybus and tram intersection showing the overhead.Ai??Ai?? I have included from Wikipedia,Ai??Ai??a short description ofAi??Ai??tram/trolleybus junctions, locations,Ai??Ai??and the electric overhead.

Tram – Trolleybus Crossings

From Wikipedia

Trams draw their power from a single overhead wire at about 500 to 750 V, while trolleybuses draw their power from two overhead wires, at a similar voltage. Because of that, at least one of the trolleybus wires must be insulated from tram wires. This is usually solved by the trolleybus wires running continuously through the crossing, with the tram conductors a few centimetres lower. Close to the junction on each side, the wire merges into a solid bar running parallel to the trolleybus wires for about half a metre. Another bar similarly angled at its ends is hung between the trolleybus wires. This is electrically connected above to the tram wire. The tram’s pantograph bridges the gap between the different conductors, providing it with a continuous pickup.

Where the tram wire crosses, the trolleybus wires are protected by an inverted trough of insulating material extending 20 or 30 mm below.

Until 1946, there was a level crossing in Stockholm, Sweden between the railway south of Stockholm Central Station and a tramway line. The tramway operated on 600-700 V DC and the railway on 15 kV AC. Some crossings between tramway/light rail and railways are still extant in Germany. In Zurich, Switzerland the VBZ trolleybus line 32 has a level crossing with the 1200 V DC railway to mount Uetliberg; at many places in the town trolleybus lines cross the tramway. In the Swiss village of Suhr the WSB tramway operating at 1200 V DC crosses the SBB line at 15 kV AC. In some cities, trolleybuses and trams have shared the same positive (feed) wire. In such cases a normal trolleybus frog can be used.

Another system that has been used is to coincide section breaks with the crossing point so that the crossing is electrically dead.

Australia

Many cities had trams and fishsticks both using trolley pole current collection. They used insulated crossovers which required tram drivers to put the controller into neutral and coast through. Trolleybus drivers had to either lift off the accelerator or switch to auxiliary power.

In Melbourne, Victoria, tram drivers put the controller into neutral and coast through section insulators, indicated by insulator markings between the rails.

Melbourne has four level crossings between electrified suburban railways and tram lines. They have complex switching arrangements to separate the 1500 V DC overhead of the railway and the 650 V DC of the trams, called an overhead square. Proposals have been put forward which would see these crossings grade separated or the tram routes diverted.

Greece

In Athens, there are two crossings between tram and trolleybus wires, at Vas. Amalias Avenue and Vas. Olgas Avenue, and at Ardittou Street and Athanasiou Diakou Street. They use the above-mentioned solution.

From the opening of the tram system in the summer of 2004, trams and trolleybuses in the direction of Pagrati shared the same exclusive lane, about 400m long, on the far right side of Vas. Olgas Avenue, with tram and trolleybus wires side-by-side above a narrow lane of road. The trolleybus wires were on the far right of the lane, away from the trams’ (very wide) pantographs. Trolleybus drivers were required to drive very slowly because the trolley poles were extended to their limits. A change of route for trolleybuses was implemented in mid-2005, ending this arrangement.

Italy

In Milan Ai??Ai??most tramway lines cross the circular trolleybus line once or twice, so crossings between overhead tram and trolleybus wires are quite commonplace. Trolleybus and tram wires run parallel in some streets, like viale Stelvio and viale Tibaldi.