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.

Adios Seattle’s Trolley Buses?

It seems transit authorities are taking a hard look at Seattle’s trolley bus system, with an eye to abandon the service. The problem in Seattle, as in Vancouver, the trolley busesAi??Ai??are only seen as a electric bus, not a different transit mode suited for a specific job. Trolley buses should be used on heavily used routes, especially hilly routes, with stops every 450 metres or more. Broadway is a prime example of their ill use as if a European style trolley bus service were to be used, there would not be any need for the diesel 99B-Line express buses.

The term ‘hybrid‘ tends to scare me as it is the term used with experimental operation and that translates into expensive operation.

In the real world, trolley buses are slowly becoming a thing of the past, being replaced by low-end streetcars or more glitzy proprietary GLT or guided bus.

Fate of trolleybuses hangs in balance

King County Metro Transit’s fleet of 159 trolleybuses need to be replaced soon, but what they should be replaced with is up for debate

By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times transportation reporter

About one-fifth of all King County Metro Transit rides are made on an electric bus, powered by a nonpolluting trolley wire overhead.

But the agency hasn’t purchased a new trolleybus since 1979.

Since then, Metro bought new bus bodies and fastened old electric motors onto them. They pulled out the diesel engines from a fleet of dual-mode buses, so they ran only on their electric motors. These minor miracles saved the public tens of millions of dollars.

Now the day of reckoning has arrived.

By 2014, the agency expects its fleet of 159 trolleybuses to wear out.

At the Sodo maintenance base, trolleybus-maintenance manager Mike Eeds pointed to a crack in a steel roof member, near the rear door of a bus. It’s not a safety hazard but could cause leaks A?ai??i??ai??? and cracks are expected to spread through the fleet. Worn-out teeth were being replaced on the same bus’s drive axle. Metro has been cannibalizing spare parts, but those will run out by 2016, he said.

County elected officials must decide by next year whether to retire the old trolleybuses, buy new-generation models or switch to some other technology.

An audit last year suggested tearing out the overhead wires and switching to hybrid buses, whose diesel engines are supplemented with onboard batteries. Doing so could ostensibly save $8 million a year compared to trolleybuses, by reducing electrical-maintenance costs and making route schedules more flexible, the audit says.

But many residents along the routes, and Seattle transportation director Peter Hahn, insist on preserving electric buses because they are quiet and nonpolluting. Seattle ranks third of only six cities in the U.S. and Canada that operate trolleybuses, behind San Francisco and Vancouver, B.C. Edmonton removed its trolleybus wires last year, but Laval, Quebec, is considering a brand-new system using local hydropower.

More than pollution

The debate here involves issues far beyond pollution and noise, with a major consideration being torque A?ai??i??ai??? electric motors have superior power to turn bus axles coming off a dead stop.

“San Francisco and Seattle have hills that are alike, up and down. There’s no way you can put diesel buses on the hills,” says Nathanael Chappelle, Metro’s 2007 co-operator of the year. Eeds agrees, saying a “straight hybrid” wouldn’t work.

Midway up Queen Anne Hill, a former cable-car route, the Number 3 and Number 13 buses stop for passengers on a 15 percent slope. When the wheels turn again, the acceleration pushes people firmly into their seat backs. The best drivers wait for all to find a seat, or feather the accelerator pedal, so as not to topple unstable riders in the aisle.

Larry Nelson, living in a fourth-floor hillside apartment, says sparks fly off the wire or the tires spin on damp pavement. Still, that’s better than smelling diesel, he says.

In the overhead network, there are dead spots where electricity is interrupted, so a bus must build momentum to coast through, but not faster than 10 mph.

Take a curve too fast, and the power poles fall off the charged wires A?ai??i??ai??? trolleybus driver Chai Kunjara compares the physics to a waterskiier who swings wide faster than the powerboat.

Despite the quirks, he says, the steering handles smoothly, the dashboard console is simple and one can navigate by following the wires, though sometimes drivers forget and stray off them.

The downside of trolleybuses is inflexibility. In the ice storm of December 2008, several trolleybuses on First Hill became stuck, paralyzing the central-city service as the following buses couldn’t pass. Diesel buses can go around stalls A?ai??i??ai??? Metro says it will “dieselize” its electric Number 70 route for three years because of the upcoming Mercer Street reconstruction.

Trolleybuses cost $1 million or more, compared with $720,000 for diesel-hybrids. Auditors also point out there’s only one North American trolleybus maker, exacerbating the risk of higher costs.

On the other hand, Vancouver is happy with its 2007 models by Winnipeg-based New Flyer, and expects them to last more than 20 years each. Dayton, Ohio, imported Czech buses for final assembly in the U.S. Hahn argues there’s no danger a robust international trolleybus industry will go extinct.

Exploring options

The County Council has ordered a technical study. Councilman Larry Phillips, D-Magnolia, argues electric buses support the fight against sprawl, by making busy city neighborhoods more pleasant.

The timing is awkward. Hydrogen vehicles or plug-in electric buses seem promising, but Metro can’t wait until those technologies mature. That leaves other options:

A?ai??i??A? Order a trolleybus with supplementary batteries charged through overhead power and regenerative braking A?ai??i??ai??? so the bus can sometimes detour off-wire.

A?ai??i??A? Combine overhead power with a supplementary diesel motor, for long or short stretches off-wire.

A?ai??i??A? Travel wire-free using electric batteries and high-torque motors, to be recharged by a diesel motor running at a steady, fuel-efficient rate. Metro General Manager Kevin Desmond also hopes to research whether there’s a bus available to use overhead power in-city, then continue off-wire several miles farther out.

Just last year, Metro published a paper describing a better “Rapid Trolley Network” that provided trips as frequent as every six minutes. There could be off-board payment and roomier vehicles, like a train. New wires over Denny Way, Yesler Way and East Madison Street would fill gaps in trolleybus routes.

When the county took over Seattle bus lines in 1973, the deal guaranteed “electric trolley service” shall continue, transportation Director Hahn’s letter emphasizes. The city is writing a new transit plan that likely would keep or even expand the lines, he said in an interview.

“We believe, in terms of climate change, greenhouse-gas goals, this is the most reliable technology.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011818844_trolleybus09m.html

The Broadway Follies Part 3 A?ai??i??ai??? Questions & Answers about SkyTrain

We continueAi??Ai??with the question and answer format about Broadway’s transit issues, with a focus on SkyTrain. Vancouver is the only city in the world that continues to plan and build solely with automatic (driverless) light-metro and many people would like to know why. First, we must tackle the issue of SkyTrain and answer questions posed about the SkyTrain light-metro system.

• Q: What is SkyTrain?
• A: SkyTrain is the local name given to the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) proprietary light-metro system, now owned by Bombardier Inc.
• Q: What is ALRT?
• A: ALRT or Advanced Light Rail Transit, was the second name designated for the proprietary light-metro system. ALRT superseded the original designated name of ICTS or Intermediate Capacity Transit system, as only two such transit systems were built. SkyTrain is now marketed as ART or Advanced Rapid Transit. ICTS was first developed to mitigate the high cost of subway construction.
• Q: Is the Canada Line SkyTrain or LRT?
• A: No, the Canada Line is a conventional metro and incompatible with the SkyTrain system.
• Q: Is SkyTrain a proprietary railway because it is automatic or driverless?
• A: No, question of automatic or driverless operation is the type of signaling system used (SELTRAC moving block system). SkyTrain is considered an unconventional proprietary railway because it is powered by Linear Induction Motors or LIMs in stead of regular ‘squirrel cage’ motors..
• Q: Is SkyTrain cheaper to operate than light rail because it is driverless?
• A: No, the savings in driver’s wages operating with LRT is nullified by the use of attendants, transit police, and a large maintenance staff to keep the metro in operation. SkyTrain’s annual operating costs are over 50% greater than comparable light rail systems.
• Q: Is SkyTrain faster than LRT?
• A: No, SkyTrain is only faster than LRT because the routeAi??Ai??it operates on has been designed to be faster, many LRT systems operate at speeds up to 30kph faster than SkyTrain on select portions of their routes. SkyTrain’s maximum speed is 80 kph, while newer TramTrains now have maximum speeds of over 110kph! Given identical routes, with the same number of stations with the same quality of rights-of-ways, SkyTrain would be no faster than light rail.
• Q: Is SkyTrain as popular as many claim?
• A: No. There are only seven SkyTrain type operations built around the world. 2 – ICTS; 1 – ALRT; 4 – ART.
• Q: Does SkyTrain have a greater capacity than LRT?
• A: No.
• Q: Does SkyTrain attract more ridership than LRT?
• A: No, despite unsubstantiated claims by TransLink, there is no study or any proof at all that SkyTrain actually attracts more ridership than light rail.
• Q: Does SkyTrain pays its operating costs as claimed by TransLink.
• A: No. TransLink conveniently forgets to include the annual provincial subsidy of over $230 million. Also TransLink does not divulge how it apportions fares between bus and SkyTrain, thus there is no way to validate the claim.