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 17th, 2015, 06:45 AM   #1501
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5754

Looking at the Manhattan bus map I don't see anything that resembles a very short loop:



Yes, you could say bus M1 and bus M8 are "loops" but they are fairly long cross-town routes.

http://web.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 17th, 2015, 12:50 PM   #1502
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,597
Likes (Received): 5959

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post

Moreover, downtown is a very dense and crowded area where new transit should go underground. The jam of buses on the main streets downtown is already very bad and very noisy. There is a reason that very large cities (NY, London, Paris, etc.) took out at-grade rail transit a century ago.
I dare to disagree. Those cities made grave mistakes to entirely abolish their tram networks. Busses for central lines are not a superior replacement. The opposite is the case. Their capacity is lower, even for last mile services. They have fewer doors and need longer for the exchange of passangers at stops. And last but not least, busses produce a considerable amount of exhaust gases.

If you start to replace the more important central buslines with streetcars you don't clog the streets, you relieve them from excessive busses. You also introduce more of a hierarchy into the network, making the network easier to understand.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

fskobic liked this post

Last edited by Slartibartfas; January 17th, 2015 at 12:59 PM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2015, 02:26 PM   #1503
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,537
Likes (Received): 2897

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
I dare to disagree. Those cities made grave mistakes to entirely abolish their tram networks. Busses for central lines are not a superior replacement. The opposite is the case. Their capacity is lower, even for last mile services. They have fewer doors and need longer for the exchange of passangers at stops. And last but not least, busses produce a considerable amount of exhaust gases.
Fewer doors on buses is a choice. My city's 18m low floor buses have 4 double doors - one at front, two in the middle and one at the back. And people can enter and exit through any doors they find convenient. I never could understand why many cities choose not to have rear doors and that only the first doors should be the entrance.

But the lower capacity of buses compared to trams is an issue. Articulated buses can carry around 170 people while a tram can carry up to 500 people. In America due to... sizeable people ...probably a bit less for both.

Quote:
If you start to replace the more important central buslines with streetcars you don't clog the streets, you relieve them from excessive busses. You also introduce more of a hierarchy into the network, making the network easier to understand.
Yes - you need twice less vehicles (which means less gaps between vehicles) and also two time less drivers.
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2015, 04:00 PM   #1504
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Unfortunately, the design is very plain with nothing to attract tourists, contrasted to the SF cable cars or "old fashioned" trolleys found in some private shopping and entertainment developments.
Or the F line in SF.

If this is to be phase 1 of a network that's designed for actually transporting people, then there's surely a better route to start with - one that makes sense and has an actual business case rather than 'I can't be bothered to walk short distances'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
I dare to disagree. Those cities made grave mistakes to entirely abolish their tram networks. Busses for central lines are not a superior replacement.
The cities in Europe that didn't get rid of their tram networks in the 50s, did so because they couldn't afford to improve their transport network by investing in the new bus tech. The ones that got rid did so because they couldn't afford to replace outdated tram tech with tram tech that provided the improvements that the buses brought.

In London, it didn't help the trams that, along with crappy vehicles, the infrastructure needed a massive overhaul with money the country didn't have (as well as the network not penetrating the West End at all, and barely penetrating The City). It would have been a grave mistake not to abolish the network, even if 50 years later, we started to rue that because the narrative about what was old, expensive and low capacity had flipped (in part due to the completely-different train-on-road 2nd gen tram schemes being successful and the 50 year old Routemasters were tired and not the best bus tech).

And Paris (while I know less of the history) has a small bus network in the city-proper anyway (and not a good one outside that central core - journeys that would use the bus in London are typically done on foot in Paris), with the Metro underneath the city providing that transport function of short-hop as well as others (you'll note that the new tram lines are outside the city proper, or on the boundary).
Quote:
Their capacity is lower, even for last mile services. They have fewer doors and need longer for the exchange of passangers at stops.
Neither true of London's Victorian/Edwardian trams vs the Routemaster bus (both were double-decker, but the trams were narrower, a little bit shorter and had the same number of doors - the Routemaster was a good 10-20% increase in capacity per vehicle), nor true of modern bendy-bus verses similar length tram....

Also, capacity per vehicle isn't everything - throughput matters too, and these tend to be much lower when trains-on-road (ie high capacity 25m+ trams) are the comparison. Oxford Road in Manchester has over 100 buses per hour in places, but while the Metrolink tram network has a theoretical max of 86tph (line of sight on a segregated alignment), the non-segregated sections will struggle to do 30tph (the max they plan on running is 45tph on segregated bit, and 25tph on-street). Croydon's town centre loop has a similar barrier, though the on-street (very limited other traffic) bit east of East Croydon station, they are talking about 30tph tops. In November, in a Manchester thread, I showed that to provide a similar capacity to the Oxford Road buses (though a very different function) they would need to run all trams at 30tph as 'double bananas' (ie 60 x 28m long vehicles per hour) - doable, but more than the capacity they will push through the busiest (and segregated) bit of the network post-phase 2 (45tph, 10 of which are double, giving 55 x 28m long vehicles per hour).

London, looking to replace busy bus corridors with trams, found it difficult to replace the capacity the buses provide with trams (see below)
Quote:
And last but not least, busses produce a considerable amount of exhaust gases.
Not anymore - bus tech has moved on since the early 00s, let alone the 1940s!

And London's Trams (and the Tube until 2002) were powered by a power station inside the urban area, so the exhaust gases (at that point in the late 40s/early 50s, from nasty coal) were merely concentrated in Chelsea, blowing into the centre with the prevailing sou'wester wind.
Quote:
If you start to replace the more important central buslines with streetcars you don't clog the streets,
Depends - London's modern tramway schemes would have replaced ~12m long vehicles every minute with ~60m vehicles every 2 minutes (after they realised that ~40m vehicles every 2.5 mins would have reduced passenger capacity on busier parts of the route and changed the plans as the whole case was based on an increase in capacity). Given the outcry in London against 18m long bendy-buses blocking junctions, I'd argue that 60m trams (ones longer than any street-running system in Europe) are a high risk of clogging up the streets far more than buses. They might not, but it's a high risk.

But that's London. LA is, of course, different (grid, wide streets, etc).

While you were talking about London, etc - this LA scheme isn't replacing buses with 60m long trams but buses with similar vehicles that run on rails that will clog the streets (after the disruption of congestion) a similar amount because they are similar.
Quote:
You also introduce more of a hierarchy into the network, making the network easier to understand.
One of the major complaints of the London proposals last decade was that average walk distances to stops would double (because it had to be trains-on-road to justify the capital expense). The corridors proposed needed a full metro for speedy high-capacity mid-to-long distance journeys and (a lot fewer than now) buses for short hops, not something that was useless for short hops, but neither much faster (as not segregated enough) nor more capacious than buses: an intermediate mode between buses and metro on the hierarchy, but also a mode fit for neither man nor beast.

With hierarchy in LA, the Expo, Blue, Gold and Green lines are trams, but of the train-sometimes-on-road light rail style that can get away with being 'metro' on the hierarchy. This downtown streetcar is also a tram, but of the buses-on-rail style, that can't get away with being better than 'buses' on the hierarchy, without becoming useless. At least US English has the hierarchy built in (light rail vs streetcars), but on the transport hierarchy, there's no difference in function or performance between well designed buses-on-rail and buses-not-on-rail routes, other than spin.

Run electric buses and a marketing campaign (branding, putting it on the Metro map, etc), rather than build this streetcar - all the benefits (clean, fast, popular) for a lot less expense.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2015, 06:13 PM   #1505
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,597
Likes (Received): 5959

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Neither true of London's Victorian/Edwardian trams vs the Routemaster bus (both were double-decker, but the trams were narrower, a little bit shorter and had the same number of doors - the Routemaster was a good 10-20% increase in capacity per vehicle), nor true of modern bendy-bus verses similar length tram....
Of course, there was a rationality back then why to do what was done. But it is wrong that trams could not be modernized. Capacities could have been increased as well. The capacities of streetcars we see nowadays in modern systems was not unheard of in up to date systems from the 50ies either. But I don't think we should bore people here with European tram history.

Quote:
Also, capacity per vehicle isn't everything - throughput matters too, and these tend to be much lower when trains-on-road (ie high capacity 25m+ trams) are the comparison. Oxford Road in Manchester has over 100 buses per hour in places, but while the Metrolink tram network has a theoretical max of 86tph (line of sight on a segregated alignment), the non-segregated sections will struggle to do 30tph (the max they plan on running is 45tph on segregated bit, and 25tph on-street). Croydon's town centre loop has a similar barrier, though the on-street (very limited other traffic) bit east of East Croydon station, they are talking about 30tph tops. In November, in a Manchester thread, I showed that to provide a similar capacity to the Oxford Road buses (though a very different function) they would need to run all trams at 30tph as 'double bananas' (ie 60 x 28m long vehicles per hour) - doable, but more than the capacity they will push through the busiest (and segregated) bit of the network post-phase 2 (45tph, 10 of which are double, giving 55 x 28m long vehicles per hour).
I just had a look at the tramstop Spitalgasse/Währinger Straße in Vienna, on a Saturday, outside of any rush hour. Within the next hour I counted about 70 tram stops. I really can't see how a bus stop of the same size could efficiently handle the same passanger transfer capacity (per time), as this tram stop. Given how your quoted numbers are considerably lower, maybe the Brits just don't know how to run a tram net with a higher capacity?

The most frequented tram lines of Vienna have a daily ridership of 68000. As I understand it, this is 1/5 of the ridership of the entire LA METRO network altogether and well in line with the ridership of single light rail lines there. This potential capacity should be more than enough to replace central bus lines as fine connectors of mid-capacity along very central corridors. And that is what streetcars should be built for. I am not totally against tourist gimmicks either, they could have their use but such monothematic transit modes are a bit of a waste of money when you can have the real deal instead that could be used by tourists and locals alike.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; January 17th, 2015 at 06:24 PM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2015, 07:45 PM   #1506
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,557

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
Of course, there was a rationality back then why to do what was done. But it is wrong that trams could not be modernized.
I never said they couldn't - I said they couldn't afford to modernize.
Quote:
I just had a look at the tramstop Spitalgasse/Währinger Straße in Vienna, on a Saturday, outside of any rush hour. Within the next hour I counted about 70 tram stops.
Is that both directions, or just one (just one would be insane even though several lines merge there). I'm only getting every 2-3 minutes on the 37/38/40/41 routes towards the centre of Vienna, which suggests the latter when you account for the 5 (which doesn't seem to stop in the same place).
Quote:
I really can't see how a bus stop of the same size could efficiently handle the same passanger transfer capacity (per time), as this tram stop.
Sure, those trams are bigger than buses (and therefore, so is the stop), but this one (when in use) - Waterloo bus stop N is giving me 4 buses in the next three minutes (Route 171 at 16:43, Route 168 at 16:43, Route 26 at 16:44, Route 4 at 16:45 and Google is only giving me four options) to bus stop D at Waterloo station. Several routes turn off before that. You are looking at well over 70bph using that tiny small stop (and the same going the other way).

All those buses would carry in the order of 80 passengers, with Vienna trams carrying about 200 (2.5 times more). I'm calling it roughly evens here.
Quote:
Given how your quoted numbers are considerably lower, maybe the Brits just don't know how to run a tram net with a higher capacity?
You missed my distinction between bus-on-rails and train-on-road. All the UK's tram networks, save Blackpool, are train-on-road. Bus-on-rails can run bus-like frequencies, because they are simply buses. However, train-on-road struggles to be practical with high frequency without segregation - hence Vienna having 2 minute headways, just the same as the maximum on UK networks.

Most of the time, 2 minute headways are fine, but you were talking about 'excessive buses' and 'most important central buslines' and as such, you end up looking at places where bus frequency is incredibly high and conversion to trams at 2 minute headways will need uber long trams that hold 500-600ppl to provide the same capacity.
Quote:
The most frequented tram lines of Vienna have a daily ridership of 68000. As I understand it, this is 1/5 of the ridership of the entire LA METRO network altogether and well in line with the ridership of single light rail lines there.
Not much more than London's route 25 (London's busiest bus route), which carries just under 65k/day on 10.1m long double decker buses running at no more than one every 3 minutes. Though given that that route duplicates heavy rail/tube lines and is 11 miles long, a lot of that traffic is going to be short hop and not on the bus route all at once (unlike Vienna's trams)

The (least successful 2nd gen tram in the UK) Midland Metro gets twice that sort of ridership (128k/day) for a route only 2 miles longer than London's route 25 and running at a similar frequency. This shows that trams can and do carry more people than buses.

I think this suggests that LA ridership is really low, given the similar nature of Midland Metro to, say, the Blue line, rather than anything else.
Quote:
If bus lines are at such an ease to get along with these numbers so splendidly I wonder myself why there is a need for light rail lines to begin with.
Increased speed? Fewer drivers? Better ride? But that only works when a level of segregation is possible, otherwise it's a case of whether there are rails already or whether you have to build them at great expense as to whether trams are better than buses.

Manchester, for instance, can have on-street tram lines along moderately busy bus routes, because they have the network and get economies of scale on rolling stock, etc. London (outside the Croydon area) can't really do it as the depot, etc infrastructure would cost too much. Neither can do it on their busiest bus corridors, as their busiest bus corridors need a more capacious solution, like a subway line (though, of course, that provides a different transit function).
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2015, 10:03 PM   #1507
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,597
Likes (Received): 5959

This is a thread about LA. I think much of that discussion fails the specific problems and needs of Downtown LA. I am not an expert but I doubt it suffers from such terribly overused buslines that you describe in London.

To get back to my previous point. Streetcars as an alternative to central buslines can be a proper transit strategy. But they have to run along central corridors that make sense and you need a solid two way track that connects to the Metro system and the actual Downtown places that people actually want to go to as well as probably other places in nearby neighbhourhoods.

Such lines could handle in terms of ridership anything from a regular busline ridership up to lower to medium capacities light rail. They also would make for a more hierarchical network. The London bus network is terribly complex and complicated and hardly a model case anyone should try to emulate.

But true, if you are totally hard pressed, you can try an do all that stuff with busses only. But my point about exhaust gasses remains valid (just because London's historical power plant was unnecessarily central, doesn't mean it should or would be nowadays), so does the substantial wear off of roads from heavily used bus corridors.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 06:22 PM   #1508
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5754

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriedisUnIzlietne View Post
Articulated buses can carry around 170 people while a tram can carry up to 500 people. In America due to... sizeable people ...probably a bit less for both.
True - esp. the Los Angeles Streetcar whose routing may only be useful for fat/tired/lazy folk who cannot walk three city blocks.
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 07:56 PM   #1509
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
True - esp. the Los Angeles Streetcar whose routing may only be useful for fat/tired/lazy folk who cannot walk three city blocks.
Staples Center / LA Live to First street is about 2.2 miles, not exactly 3 blocks.
__________________

CNB30 liked this post
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 08:06 PM   #1510
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
True - esp. the Los Angeles Streetcar whose routing may only be useful for fat/tired/lazy folk who cannot walk three city blocks.
Have you actually walked around downtown Los Angeles? From your posts I get an impression that it is not a case...
__________________

turtlebay liked this post
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 09:30 PM   #1511
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,537
Likes (Received): 2897

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
True - esp. the Los Angeles Streetcar whose routing may only be useful for fat/tired/lazy folk who cannot walk three city blocks.
I'm not really sure how that related to my post about capacity...

But the streetcar's one way design IS unhandy. If you want to get from west (Metro lines) to east (Fashion district) it's either ~20 min by foot or the same ~20 min by streetcar because of the detour. And because of the design it's also unhandy for people in the S-N direction
__________________

Swede liked this post
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 10:05 PM   #1512
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,581
Likes (Received): 3093

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Staples Center / LA Live to First street is about 2.2 miles, not exactly 3 blocks.
But there's already a subway at each location.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 10:09 PM   #1513
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,581
Likes (Received): 3093

[QUOTE=sotonsi;120707245]Or the F line in SF.

If this is to be phase 1 of a network that's designed for actually transporting people, then there's surely a better route to start with - one that makes sense and has an actual business case rather than 'I can't be bothered to walk short distances'.


It is not the first step of anything. It is a loop.

Yes, it will be ironic that LA will have anonymous cars while SF has in its arsenal workable LA street cars from the "Golden Age".
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2015, 10:43 PM   #1514
BriedisUnIzlietne
Registered User
 
BriedisUnIzlietne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Breda/Riga
Posts: 3,537
Likes (Received): 2897

Why couldn't they make it a two way streetcar line on route 12th & Flower - 12th & Broadway - 1st & Broadway. It connects to Blue and Expo lines at one end and to Purple and Red lines at the other, and it lets people from those lines to reach Fashion district, Jewelery district and Historic downtown or vice versa. With the current plan it's impossible to do it conveniently in at least on of the directions. IMO my version would be much better. But I'll let you judge me on that.
BriedisUnIzlietne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2015, 01:21 AM   #1515
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

@sotonsi - part one

We are OT by far, but your long, rich and well reasoned posts deserve an answer, with some remarks.

Quote:
... The cities in Europe that didn't get rid of their tram networks in the 50s, did so because they couldn't afford to improve their transport network by investing in the new bus tech. The ones that got rid did so because they couldn't afford to replace outdated tram tech with tram tech that provided the improvements that the buses brought. ...
In addition to cost issues, also the cultural climate played a fundamental role in that tram mass slaughter: leaving aside conspiracy theories, it's nevertheless true that public authorities saw in tram lanes some precious space for cars and in several cities they eradicated tram systems despite almost new rolling stocks, well maintained infrastructures and good shaped networks.
Hyped up by politicians and opinion makers, people believed in a bright future established on private cars and trams were depicted only as a relic of a wretched past of which cities should got rid the sooner the better; after less than twenty years the increasing congestion in urban streets and 1973 oil crisis clearly showed delusional all those beliefs, but the damage had been done.

Quote:
... [Their capacity is lower, even for last mile services] Neither true of London's Victorian/Edwardian trams vs the Routemaster bus (both were double-decker, but the trams were narrower, a little bit shorter and had the same number of doors - the Routemaster was a good 10-20% increase in capacity per vehicle), nor true of modern bendy-bus verses similar length tram. ...
Double-decker vehicles are an UK specialty and even in that time were very rare outside British Empire: in the rest of the world capacity was lower for buses than (by then) modern bogie trams and in any case articulated tramcars date back to the 20's.
Naples Sirio by AnsaldoBreda, one of the shorter modern tram (20,2 m length), carries 155 passengers, the same as an average articulated low-floor bus, but it's bidirectional (=two cockpits) and narrower (2,30 m versus 2,5/2,6 m) due to local restraint.

Quote:
... Also, capacity per vehicle isn't everything - throughput matters too, and these tend to be much lower when trains-on-road (ie high capacity 25m+ trams) are the comparison. Oxford Road in Manchester has over 100 buses per hour in places, but while the Metrolink tram network has a theoretical max of 86tph (line of sight on a segregated alignment), the non-segregated sections will struggle to do 30tph (the max they plan on running is 45tph on segregated bit, and 25tph on-street). Croydon's town centre loop has a similar barrier, though the on-street (very limited other traffic) bit east of East Croydon station, they are talking about 30tph tops. ...
Throughput depends greatly by the context, so what's true for Manchester doesn't apply elsewhere; plus you have to discriminate between corridors (multiple lines on a route) performance and lines performance: even where your statement about throughput is true, a single line capacity is limited by its max frequency (2½' headway for a single line with drive “on sight” is an outstanding result, and needs excellent driver, very regular passengers flow at stops and a quite disciplined traffic behavior in order to maintain an acceptable service regularity); if you hit this capacity ceiling with bendy buses, you won't add more passages even with residual bph-capacity at the most critical stop on the route.

Quote:
... Not much more than London's route 25 (London's busiest bus route), which carries just under 65k/day on 10.1m long double decker buses running at no more than one every 3 minutes. ...
I suppose 65k well packed sardines could be a more precise “solving clue”.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

Last edited by Yak79; January 19th, 2015 at 02:24 AM. Reason: Post splitting in two part due to legibility concerns
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2015, 02:24 AM   #1516
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2176

@sotonsi - part two

Quote:
... [And last but not least, busses produce a considerable amount of exhaust gases.] Not anymore - bus tech has moved on since the early 00s, let alone the 1940s! ... And London's Trams (and the Tube until 2002) were powered by a power station inside the urban area, so the exhaust gases (at that point in the late 40s/early 50s, from nasty coal) were merely concentrated in Chelsea, blowing into the centre with the prevailing sou'wester wind. ...
To be fair, the comparison has to be between same time technologies, and in both cases (then and now) tram wins over bus in term of pollution.

Quote:
... Given the outcry in London against 18m long bendy-buses blocking junctions, I'd argue that 60m trams (ones longer than any street-running system in Europe) are a high risk of clogging up the streets far more than buses. They might not, but it's a high risk. ...
Articulated buses are far less agile than tramcars (even with their better braking) and a reserved lane - a simple lane, not a fenced “segregated ROW” - for bus is considerably wider (3,5 m versus 2,5/3 m).

Quote:
... You missed my distinction between bus-on-rails and train-on-road. All the UK's tram networks, save Blackpool, are train-on-road. ...
In the end, I don't get your split-up between “bus-on-rails” and “train-on-road”: although without any exotic marketing-ish flavor (like all those modern word - LRT, premetrò, metrotranvia, sneltram, etc.- that imply whole different things every single time they use them), it doesn't have any scientific meaning. Unless you have train operation - i.e. the driver follows instructions the regulator gives him (signaling) - with high frequency and a dedicated urban network, that is a metro, you must refer to a tram - i. e. the driver lead the vehicle, which is constrained by a physical bond, under is own responsibility (visual march); whenever a line shows both train and tram operation in different stretch, the tram part prevails, because is more imposing in global performance term.
In this big tram group I don't see two well separate subset like yours, but rather a continuous variation in more than one aspect (vehicle features, operation management, ROW characteristic, etc.) all across the world.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

Slartibartfas liked this post
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2015, 07:48 AM   #1517
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5754

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunfuns View Post
Have you actually walked around downtown Los Angeles? From your posts I get an impression that it is not a case...
Yes, I have been in downtown Los Angeles, at Union Station, Olivera Street and Staples Center/LA Live and also up and down the Mexican retail district in Broadway, and also to Little Tokyo. That was back in 2008. Did the street blocks get longer since then?
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2015, 01:27 PM   #1518
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,597
Likes (Received): 5959

Quote:
Originally Posted by BriedisUnIzlietne View Post
Why couldn't they make it a two way streetcar line on route 12th & Flower - 12th & Broadway - 1st & Broadway. It connects to Blue and Expo lines at one end and to Purple and Red lines at the other, and it lets people from those lines to reach Fashion district, Jewelery district and Historic downtown or vice versa. With the current plan it's impossible to do it conveniently in at least on of the directions. IMO my version would be much better. But I'll let you judge me on that.
Yes, something like that would be a nice streetcar starter corridor. But I guess there is no point in debating lines that will never be built anyway. The streetcar is going to be a toy. As a tourist I clearly would have liked it the last time I was there. It is a very nice way for tourists to get a bigger picture of Downtown. But that's about it.

The regional connector on the other side is something of incredible importance if you ask me. The current situation is highly uncomfortable and time consuming when you have to switch lines for one or two last stops. With the regional connector a lot more central locations will be connected to a lot more different lines. This should create a lot of synergy effects.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK

Last edited by Slartibartfas; January 19th, 2015 at 01:35 PM.
Slartibartfas no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2015, 08:25 PM   #1519
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

[QUOTE=pesto;120740055]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Or the F line in SF.

If this is to be phase 1 of a network that's designed for actually transporting people, then there's surely a better route to start with - one that makes sense and has an actual business case rather than 'I can't be bothered to walk short distances'.


It is not the first step of anything. It is a loop.

Yes, it will be ironic that LA will have anonymous cars while SF has in its arsenal workable LA street cars from the "Golden Age".
Actually, it is. There are plans extensions and additions. This is just phase 1
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 03:03 AM   #1520
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5754

to clear up confusion:

phase 1 is blue
phase 2 is orange



__________________

LosAngelesSportsFan liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

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 11:49 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