daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 2nd, 2015, 07:26 PM   #261
Magistraler
alomtegenwoordig
 
Magistraler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Roffa
Posts: 7,568
Likes (Received): 2134

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_UK View Post
I would hate to see the precious Dutch countryside that surrounds Amsterdam and connecting cities being filled with horrible modern Dutch architecture in order to house even more immigrants - which is what you have been proposing for a long time.
Nothing precious about that countryside surrounding Amsterdam.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_UK View Post

It's not really growing though. It's shrinking.
Check your facts.

It isnt.
Actually it s growing with 70.000 inhab a year.
Wich is too slow for me, anyway.

You want to put all these people in the countryside?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_UK View Post
It has already, and indeed one of the finest in the world
One of the prettiest, but way too small AND lacking high class transportation links (apart from a decent airport) both within the city and between other cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_UK View Post
Which is what they are doing in Rotterdam. Result: empty office blocks.
Government is not doing anything in Rotterdam. And thats part of the problem. Yes.
Magistraler no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 3rd, 2015, 01:10 AM   #262
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
...
This is why more subways are needed in Amsterdam, only subways can transport passengers in a fast way.
...
This kind of statement echoes here and there in every public transport forum, but nevertheless it couldn’t be less true: unless you're speaking about a very large or spread out city, speed (neither average nor commercial) won't be an important parameter in transport planning. From users point of view, the matter is how much time they need for reach their destination: it's true that compared to trams, commercial speed for metros are about double, but
  1. in a dense urban structure (typical European cities) movements are relatively slow, regardless which transport mode you use (private car is the touchstone);
  2. a tram/light rail with at grade route into the road and stops every 400/600 m (*) need an half of average walking time or less than a complete segregate metro with stops every 900/1200 m and a more or less long path into the station which bring you to the train platform (downstairs in the tunnel, upstairs to the viaduct or at side, if the segregated ROW is at grade);
  3. once the passenger gets there, he'll have to wait a train, and maybe one transfer (or more) are needed, so you have to add total waiting time - frequencies don't depend on type of public transport and may also be lower for a metro (for the same global capacity, a metro train carries more passengers than a tramcar);
  4. in a small/medium sized compact city, average journey distance is rather short, so even a not negligible difference in speed results in a small amount of time
.
A planner who refers only to on-board speed and consequently decides to built a metro line without an adequate transport demand (at least more than 10.000 pass/h for a sensible percentile of service hours) could probably waste a fair amount of money (1 km of metro ≥ 3 km of tram, in term of construction costs) gaining less than a minute as actual average time saving for each journey.

(*) From this point of view, you can't count the 2 km distance between Rietlandpark and Zuiderzeeweg, with a 1,9 km long tunnel under the water, so tram 26 scores approximately 810 m per stop: an impressive figure for a tram, anyway.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

MiaM liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 01:18 AM   #263
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

A lot of extreme views here.

I tend to be more in the middle. Yes, I think Amsterdam needs more metro lines (or more exact, extension of existing lines), but no, I don't think line 26 is a "half-baked tram line". For tram standards it's actually a very good one. It has a higher average speed than even certain subway lines in Paris, for example. For the short distance to Centraal Station it's more than fast enough, and capacity is adequate and can be expanded.

I do think it can be improved by "fixing" some of the level crossing on Zeeburgereiland (mostly an improvement to car traffic, though), and I do worry the line will get slower if the new stop on Zeeburgereiland or in the Piet Heintunnel is added, even though I understand the use of these stops.

I also think the metro from Diemen-Zuid to IJburg should be built if they start making the new islands and start building in high density there, but I don't think they should build the metro right now to have it stop on an empty bit of quicksand.
__________________

Urbanus, MiaM, tunnel owl liked this post
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 01:31 AM   #264
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
[*]a tram/light rail with at grade route into the road and stops every 400/600 m (*) need an half of average walking time or less than a complete segregate metro with stops every 900/1200 m and a more or less long path into the station which bring you to the train platform (downstairs in the tunnel, upstairs to the viaduct or at side, if the segregated ROW is at grade);
Generally with metro systems that run from the inner city to the periphery, distance between stops is lower in the center. You can see this with the Oostlijn where the distance between Centraal, Nieuwmarkt and Waterlooplein is far lower than the distances in Zuid-Oost.

Personally I see the longer path to the subway as a positive in cold, rainy Amsterdam. I'd rather walk downstairs a minute extra and wait 6 minutes comfortably and dry for a metro than wait 4 minutes for a tram in the freezing wind and rain.
__________________

Urbanus, tunnel owl liked this post
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 01:54 AM   #265
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

That movements are slow doesn't mean they should be slow. Amsterdam is part of a wider metro area which is tucked into the polycentric urban agglomeration of "Randstad". It needs fast connections, else it is faster to travel between Amsterdam and Rotterdam central cores than between two neighborhoods split by the IJ.

Your observation about time used on stairs or ramps is only much relevant for very short trips. But very short trips (< 1,5 km) in Amsterdam and Netherlands as whole face tough competition from bicycles anyway.

The debate between stop spacing and total travel time is also contentious. Arguable, over time, especially with rather high-cost fixed access infrastructure like highway exits, subway stations, airports, patterns of housing and business adapt to their presence, which reduces the effect of longer spacing. I don't expect Amsterdam to allow high-rises near Rokin station, but maybe Europaplein and De Pijp would see this effect if upward construction was allowed on their vicinity.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 02:04 AM   #266
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

When these last saw commercial tram service?
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 02:07 AM   #267
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,959
Likes (Received): 6070

Never. Catenary wires haven't even been installed.
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 03:03 AM   #268
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
When these last saw commercial tram service?
The urban legend is the city wanted a bus lane, but could only get subsidies for a tram lane, so they put in tram tracks just to get the subsidies.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 11:46 AM   #269
MiaM
Registered User
 
MiaM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 279
Likes (Received): 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
(*) From this point of view, you can't count the 2 km distance between Rietlandpark and Zuiderzeeweg, with a 1,9 km long tunnel under the water, so tram 26 scores approximately 810 m per stop: an impressive figure for a tram, anyway.
This distance is on the other hand what really can give a fast travel time.

P.S. if you actually want faster travel times on line 26 you could realign the tracks at centraal station so the line doesn't have to loop around Prins Hendrikkaade, and also align the tracks so the line has one stop nearby it's current place (Oostzijde) and also a stop nearby the other tram stops (Westzijde). But that would probably not be fancy enough...
MiaM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2015, 09:03 PM   #270
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

Nothing in my post can be blamed as “extreme”: I spoke in general, pointing out that single line speed isn't a significant parameter when you evaluate a public transport system (planned or existing): obviously any increase of global average commercial speed (= for the whole system) is a good thing, but this has far more to do with operational costs than with travel times. Now I'll try to explain my statement with a practical example (maybe a little gross, but suitable to clarify my speech) - data are from previous posts and GVB site:

Data
tram 26: line length 8,3 km, speed 23,6 km/h, total travel time (between terminus) 21', departures every 6' during weeekdays
average Amsterdam metro: speed 35,4 km/h, departures every 10' during weekdays

1.
tram → 21'
metro (estimated) → 14'
theoretical difference 7' = 33% of saving
2.
tram → 21' + 3' (average waiting time) = 24'
metro → 14' + 5' (average waiting time) + 1' (path into the stations)= 20'
factual difference 4' = 17% of saving
3.
Not all journey are from Centraal Station to Ijburg, if you assume public transport isn't used under 1,5 km you could take 4,9 km as average mileage
tram → 12,5' + 3' = 15,5'
metro → 8,3' + 5' + 1' = 14,3'
average difference 1' 12'' = 7% of saving
When you think that not all destination are near a tram stop or a metro station and that some passengers use more than a line to reach their destination, you'll have to sum also an esteem of walking time, interchange waiting and further travel time: even if you conjecture that those times are the same in tram and metro set-up and therefore 1' 12'' difference doesn't change, nevertheless the average saving rate will be lower (likely less than 5%).
Obviously you can modify data in a way that nullify this results, and this specific example could stumble in some local peculiarity I'm not aware, but this is the way things go in general situations and for this reason the statement “metro is a better choice because is faster than tram” is scientifically nonsensical (although metro, per se, are almost always faster).
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

MiaM liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2015, 05:14 AM   #271
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
Nothing in my post can be blamed as “extreme”
You should look at the times our posts were made. I was typing while you made your post. I quite obviously was not referring to your post.
__________________

MiaM, Yak79 liked this post
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2015, 02:49 PM   #272
tunnel owl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 751
Likes (Received): 440

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
Personally I see the longer path to the subway as a positive in cold, rainy Amsterdam. I'd rather walk downstairs a minute extra and wait 6 minutes comfortably and dry for a metro than wait 4 minutes for a tram in the freezing wind and rain.
I would prefer biking if it´s not raining, if speed of tram is really that incredible slow in average as mentioned here.
tunnel owl no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2015, 07:46 PM   #273
Magistraler
alomtegenwoordig
 
Magistraler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Roffa
Posts: 7,568
Likes (Received): 2134

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
Now I'll try to explain my statement with a practical example
tram 26: line length 8,3 km, speed 23,6 km/h, total travel time (between terminus) 21', departures every 6' during weeekdays
average Amsterdam metro: speed 35,4 km/h, departures every 10' during weekdays
You are skewing the comparison. Why should a tram have more departures than a metro?
A metro would certainly enable and induce high density developments after some time.
Safe to assume that in the end metrolines do have more departures.
__________________

Suburbanist liked this post
Magistraler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2015, 08:04 PM   #274
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistraler View Post
You are skewing the comparison. Why should a tram have more departures than a metro?
A metro would certainly enable and induce high density developments after some time.
Safe to assume that in the end metrolines do have more departures.
It also means metro makes it possible for more distant areas to thrive. For instance, Hollendrecht and Zuidost are within easy commute trips to major employment centers. If mere trams served those areas, everybody living there would take twice the time to get to/from home every day. As Amsterdam is an expensive place to live, metro helps make more distant suburbs affordable for families on lower and middle income range (upper income ones can afford the prices, students and young single can share apartments).
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!

Magistraler, Silly_Walks liked this post
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2015, 10:56 PM   #275
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistraler View Post
You are skewing the comparison. Why should a tram have more departures than a metro?
A metro would certainly enable and induce high density developments after some time.
Safe to assume that in the end metrolines do have more departures.
Ten minute headway is what now all metro lines in Amsterdam offer, as well as six minute is the real headway for tram line 26: I'm only assuming that an hypothetical Ijburg line should have nothing more than existing metros; I don't think this is “skewing the comparison”, unless you believe Amsterdam transport authorities deliberately avoided to built a metro along the highest patronage corridor in the city (rather fetched opinion, IMHO).
The reason behind the headway apparent oddity is simple: a metro train is far more capacious than a tramcar (an LHB trainset carries 900/1200 passengers, a CAF trainset 750/1000, new M5 trains 960; a Combino tram used on line 26 only 180)*, so with an identical starting transport demand, even if you account metro ability to attract more users and further development effects, the metro set-up couldn't have the same hourly departures as the existing tram (or more); for whose sake GVB should have trains circulate half empty?
Moreover, in an European city high density developments aren't that much relevant: metro lines 53 and 54, opened in 1977, show some overcrowding only now, yet with departures every 10'.

* source Wikipedia, LHB and CAF trainset are formed by 3 or 4 cars depending on which line they serve.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
... Hollendrecht and Zuidost are within easy commute trips to major employment centers. If mere trams served those areas, everybody living there would take twice the time to get to/from home every day.
...
Even if you ignore all my remarks persisting to use commercial speed in order to calculate commuters travel time, our case demonstrate that a tram could have two third of metro speed: it's not fair downgrading it only for emphasize your point of view
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

MiaM liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2015, 01:11 AM   #276
Magistraler
alomtegenwoordig
 
Magistraler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Roffa
Posts: 7,568
Likes (Received): 2134

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
I'm only assuming that an hypothetical Ijburg line should have nothing more than existing metros; ...
This hypothetical IJburg line would have the capacity to unlock a residential area between CS and Almere (IJburg I, II, III and IV) with 250.000 inhabitants in 2050. Not even counting with Almere where it would have some stations as well.
Moreover, this same IJburg line should get a westbound leg to connect with outlying expansions of Amsterdam.


I appreciate your traveltime calculations, but you are missing quite a few variables into the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
unless you believe Amsterdam transport authorities deliberately avoided to built a metro along the highest patronage corridor in the city
Constructing a metroline in Amsterdam is a highly politically charged process. I wouldnt count too much on technologically desirable (transport wise) variables as far as the political decision making of the authorities is concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
.... even if you account metro ability to attract more users and further development effects, the metro set-up couldn't have the same hourly departures as the existing tram ...
untrue

In the end you could run a train every 1min40 through the tubes.
Magistraler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2015, 03:12 AM   #277
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

One issue I never understood is why does GVB keep a conductor on trams?

Dutch labor costs are quite expensive, and I can't fathom a reason for a conductor to be present on trams, on this and age of OV-Chipkaart.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2015, 03:50 AM   #278
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
One issue I never understood is why does GVB keep a conductor on trams?

Dutch labor costs are quite expensive, and I can't fathom a reason for a conductor to be present on trams, on this and age of OV-Chipkaart.
If you had been here when there wasn't a conductor, you would have understood.

The honor system did not work in Amsterdam trams, to put it mildly, and having everybody pass by the driver would cause too much time wasted at stops.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2015, 06:26 PM   #279
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistraler View Post
...
I appreciate your traveltime calculations, but you are missing quite a few variables into the equation.
...
You're somewhat missing the point of my whole posting here: the statement I'm trying to demonstrate it's improper is “they should have built a metro (only) because metros are faster” - I'm going to say this for the last time -: it's a blunder widespread at all latitudes I hoped to thwart a little.
For that purpose, I started with some general assessment and then with a numerical example, for which I chose the Ijburg line case only for practical reasons - most of the data are directly available on this thread - but I could have picked up another random city elsewhere; as I cleared in my previous post, the calculation validity is restricted by assuming the state-of-art as a base (aka “rebus sic stantibus”), so I deliberately discarded local context specificity (which besides I didn't know). At any rate, you're speaking about a development that will attract/relocate something nearly ⅓ of Amsterdam municipal population (⅙ if you consider metropolitan area): an occurrence so enormous would have a bomb-like impact on whole transport system. I'm not sure in which mean you used “unlock”:
  • literally, i. e. you think this development will happen no matter what, but without a metro it'll be left secluded from the city center - in this case they should have build a metro due to capacity issues;
  • figuratively, i. e. you think this development is on the verge of happen and a metro could be the right catalyst in order to start it - in this case they might have built a metro due to its higher TrIG (transportation-related induced growth) potential and you're complaining they didn't;
either way, however, speed is only a minor feature in the overall framework.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magistraler View Post
... untrue

In the end you could run a train every 1min40 through the tubes.
If the scenery you're speaking about occur, travel time cut will be the effect of, and not the reason behind, a tighter schedule (the astounding headway you pointed out would be justified by an occurred/expected patronage rising and not by time saving purposes).

In the end, nothing in what you wrote impinge with my point of view (thought your arguments invalidate this specific numerical example): if the initial statement had been “they should have built a metro in order to deal with/stimulate Ijburg development”, I wouldn't have objected, neither in principle, because those (capacity and, to a lesser extent, TrIG effects) are scientifically valid factors in transport planning, nor in substance, because I don't know Amsterdam enough to evaluate your assertions about Ijburg development.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

MiaM liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2015, 03:29 PM   #280
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,959
Likes (Received): 6070

__________________

dimlys1994, Suburbanist liked this post
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amsterdam, public transport

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium