Best wishes for 2013…
January 1, 2013
…And for the kid in us, this advertising from RFF:
Is it time to bring back the streetcar to Vancouver?
April 16, 2012
Posted at the request of Yuri Artibise
April 12, 2012, Vancouver, BC:
Vancouver-based online consultation platform PlaceSpeak launched a survey today asking if city residents support the reintroduction of streetcars to our neighbourhoods.
Vancouver is currently exploring the use of streetcars as a key element of our transition to more sustainable transportation modes. But if streetcars are to be reintroduced in today’s economic climate it is important that they are planned in a thoughtful, evidence-based manner that includes public input. With this in mind, PlaceSpeak teamed up with Patrick Condon at the University of British Columbia (UBC) to gauge the public’s interest in restoring streetcars—and associated amenities—to our city.
Historically, Vancouver began as a streetcar city with electric trams connecting neighbourhoods and the downtown core. By the 1920s, however, the introduction of the car proved so powerful that they quickly became the preferred mode of transportation. In fact, Vancouver’s original streetcar grid left such a strong imprint that many arterial streets continue to thrive. Indeed, if you ask a resident where the heart of their neighbourhood is, they will likely name the former streetcar street at its center.
In recent years, B.C. citizens have been struggling to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the air. In our province transportation produces more GHG than any other sector, and the bulk of that comes from the ordinary activity of residents travelling through the city each day.
In Vancouver, we have also been figuring out how to incorporate ‘livable density’ as we plan a sustainable, affordable, and livable future for our residents. Streetcars may be able to help with both. According to Condon, one part of the solution may be returning to our ‘routes’ and reintroducing streetcars to Vancouver:
Vancouver is slowly on track to meet our 2050 goals for reducing GHGs. We walk more, bike more, use transit more, and our cars less and less. But to make the next big leap requires us to think now about electrifying the transit system. It won’t help if we all use buses if those buses belch diesel fumes. Streetcars are one solution; and for many streets the cheapest one available. Our city grew with the streetcar. It might grow more sustainable with it again.
“Density without transit is just dense”, says PlaceSpeak CEO Colleen Hardwick:
For Vancouver to meet its environmental goals while accommodating forecasted population growth it is crucial that we diversify our transit options. Streetcars are the missing link in our transportation infrastructure.”
Find out more and take the short survey at www.placespeak.com/streetcarcity2050
Stephen Rees has already posted on it, and you could find an ensuing discussion it on his blog
.
Dumpster
August 18, 2010
A more or less typical Vancouver Down Town Alley, not really engaging, isn'it? credit photo (1)
Michael Geller has collected interesting idea from Spain, on its blog, including one he thinks could improve the look of our dumpsters:
Dumpster in Barcelona, Spain. credit Photo (2)
But may be we can go one step beyond, and remove them altogether from sight by putting them underground to have something looking more like this:
Dumpster are not nice, smelly and take room. put them underground
Buried dumpster become a common fixture in Europe, and often, they are mounted on a lifting platform looking like it when opened:
the 'buried' dumpster are in fact mounted on a lifting platform making them readily accesible for garbage collection
You can check [4] to see how it works. That said, some other “buried” dumpster systems exist [5], and could be certainly worth to be explored, not only for collection of household and commercial waste, but also to replace too often overflowing bins on Granville Mall and elsewhere, and that could allow to fully exploit the potential of our alleys like Seattle has did for some of them:
Nord alley, Seattle. credit photo (3)
[3]MyUrbanist
[4] this youtube video illustrates how can wok the lift system
[5] another system, not relying anymore on rolling dumpster, can be view in demonstration on this youtube video.
turnstile: the French take
May 29, 2010
[edited on May 30th 2010]
This post is written in the context of the decision to move from the current honor system to the barrier controlled access rail transit system in Vancouver. The capital cost involved by the move is estimated at $100 millions [3]. the cost of fare evasion on the Vancouver rail system is estimated at $3.5 millions per year [4].
Fare evasion
At the beginning the Paris subway had human fare control at its gates. In a move to save on fare control operating cost, the Parisian transit agency, had started to implement turnstile, pretty much in the style seen on the Toronto TTC or the Vancouver seabus…
But Quickly, it appeared that the lack of human control once in the subway system was a pretty good incentive to dodge the turnstiles.
The full display of fare evasion as well as turnstile dodging technique associated with perceived impunity of such behavior, has encouraged wide spreading of similar conducts in the Paris subway, then adopted by people of all conditions as illustrated below
.
A French countryman, Jacques Chirac, dodging a turnstile in the Paris subway on Dec 5, 1980, station Auber. He was then Mayor of Paris, he will become head of State (credit photo bnf)
That has lead the French transit agency, the ratp to adopt more elaborate faregate, now featuring full door.
- either the door stay open long enough, and several people (following close enough) can pass the gate with a single fare.
- or the door close very quickly, and you can’t cross the gate with any luggage, or stroller.
In despite of tremendous investment in fare gating, fare evasion is estimated at 10% in the Parisian subway what is in fact comparable to the access free subway in Berlin [7] and way much more than the 5% measured in Vancouver [4] or 6% on the access free subway of Los Angeles in 2007 [8]
in any case, the turnstiles are an impediment slowing down the flow of transit riders, and the good thing introduced by smart-cards, is that it allow to mitigate this point.
One will note that if fare evasion was the justification for a fare gating, subsidy could be then not necessary. In reality fare evasion on Vancouver transit system is as low as 2.5% system wide (5% on the Skytrain, what amount to $3.5 millions revenue lost a year, which could be only partially recovered by turnstiles) [4], that is nowhere near to able to justify an $100 million investment [3]. In comparison of other systems [7][9][10], there is a generally good level of compliance in Vancouver, observation that the casual observer could have confirmed during the Olympic games, by watching the sometime hour long line-up at the fare vending machine .
Security
It has been a strange and unsubstantiated claim done by the British Columbia government that the fare gates could increase the security on the skytrain [2].
The opposite could be more true: In fact, the diversion of resource going to the maintenance and amortization of the fare gates, instead of human staffing are of nature to make the system less safe.
The creativity of the fare gate dodgers and other smugglers being boundless, it appears that nothing is able to replace human staffing as the picture below illustrates and could also apply to Canada [6]
.
Police, at Paris Gare du Nord, in April 2007, makes sure everyone is paying his fare!
Nevertheless, the unsubstantiated BC government claim will suffice to justify to allocate $70 millions of subsidy by senior government toward a fare gating system on the Vancouver rail network [3]
The smart card
Another strange association has been done in BC between the turnstile and the smart card. Both can be put in place separably, as it is done on numerous transit network.
smartcard access to the subway of Rennes, France, is done without turnstile. Nevertheless, notice how the smart card readers are placed in prominent position on the farepaid zone line (credit photo wikipedia commons)
The distance based pricing
That seems the only reason a network transit the size of the Vancouver one, could wish to adopt turnstiles control. Controlling entry and exit of the network effectively allows the transit operator to charge by the distance, as done in some rail network, more noticeably on the Hong Kong MTR [5]
Still, in this case, one will find curious the government interference in a matter which should be a priori leads by economic consideration.
Even so: the logic would like that the smart card come first, since it can work currently in the 3 zones model, which is common to numerous network, like the Paris one, and turnstiles in a second phase. Curiously, according to the VancouverSun [1], it is the reverse we gonna see, and suffer all the inconvenience of the faregate, including compromised ease of access to the transit system for people with special needs; from the traveler with luggage, to the wheelchairs, without the advantage of the smartcard.
[1] Olympic commuters sticking with public transit, Vancouver Sun, May 25, 2010
[2] Free rides approach end of the line on SkyTrain, CBC, November 09, 2007.
[3] Canada, BC and TransLink Invest in Transit Security Improvements, press release from Canda government, April 09, 2009
[4] Fare evasion Internal Audit, by PriceWaterHouseCoopers, Translink, September 2007
[5] Notice that such distance based pricing model can a priori apply only to the rail network, and not the bus one. Nevertheless, the smart card can allow implementation of a bus route based pricing like on the model of Hong Kong
[6] Montreal police quell subway brawl, Globe and Mail, December 27, 2009.
[7] TTC fare collection study, TTC, October 2000.
[8] Metro Rail Gating Study, Metro Los Angeles, November 15, 2007
[9] Toronto TTC has a fare evasion of as low as 0.7% on its subway [7], but one should note that all the turnstiles lines are constantly monitored by human staff, via strategic location of ticket office at the stations, as well as additional staffing at rush hours. Non staffed entrance, are equipped of full rotating door, unable to accommodate people with special need (wheelchair, stroller,…). In conclusion, it could be hard to conclude that the low fare evasion number is achieved by turnstiles alone. This observation can be confirmed by the number from the New York subway able to reduce from 3.5% to 0.5% the level of fare evasion through policy measures [7].
[10] The level of fare evasion is estimated at 5% in Montreal, where the subway is accessed throug fare gate, as estimated by the Montreal Transit Agency (stm communiqué, April 21th, 2008 )
Park Avenue
May 21, 2010
Avenue [ˈævɪˌnjuː] from the old french arrival, has eventually got a different meaning in english, as well as in current french, due to the current usage we give to it nowadays.
Here after is a very simplified history of it:
XVIII century
At the eventual difference of other roads or streets, avenues were usually work of urban planning, and primarly designed as radial promenade at the edge of the city with function to great in a ceremonial way the arriving visitor
Avenue du Mail, Rennes, France. concept plan from the XVIII century. the leisure aspect is the dominant factor, at the expense of the mobility one. credit photo (1)
XIXcentury
Though that not matching to the original vision, the primary promenade function is still well respected.
The same location at the turn of the century. The leisure aspect of the promenade is still well alive
XX century
The advent of the automobile and other social change will involve deep cultural shift:
- Urban people will eventually prefer spend their free time elsewhere than lingering on the street becoming less pleasant due to the surrounding roaring motors and gas smell (we don’t speak to much pollution those day).
- the free space is then occupied by the new mobility device
With the advent of the automobile, the promenade change of function! (it is still Avenue du Mail, lately renamed Mail Francois Mitterrand, Rennes France)
XXI century
Another relative cultural shift appears in the 80s, eventually learning of the american experience: it appears very apparent that the adaptation of the European city to the car has no future: and a better use of the scarcely city’s available real estate need to be devised. the LRT, trams in Europe, will be part of the solution, and the large French avenues, will be ideal Right of Way candidate. The vision of the future century is then eventually represented by this artist rendering:
the future Starsbourg tram, line F, riding on what used to be a parking lot...at least in the recent history. credit photo (5)
One will note, it is pretty seldom to see modern tree lined trams, eventually for the following reasons:
- the tree roots system could compromise the integrity of the trackbed
- the tree branches could interfere with the overhead wires
- the falling tree leaves could grease the rails, compromising the acceleration/braking capabilities of the train
In the Strasbourg F-line case, those aspects are mitigated by the integration of the bike path along the tram ROW. the integration of the bike path is an addition to the late LRT project.
Obviously, the vision is a significant progress on the current situation, in the sense it returns to a pleasantly greenish aspect of the avenue.
The park and ride model
Where we should not give more credit to the french than they deserve is here:
- In most of the case the space allocated to the automobile traffic is not compromised, and the Strasbourg example shown above is basically no exception to the rule: while that the parking space is removed at the benefit of the trams, there is no reduction in automobile traffic lanes benefiting then of a freer flow, since not impeded by car looking for or negotiating parking spot
- there is no increase of space for pedestrians, and the leisure and social interaction aspect, like lingering on the street, is not part of the picture either
The removal of parking space could be considered as a progress, but usually, a french tram projects barely means reduction of parking space either, but rather relocation of it according to the well known park and ride model.
The picture below feature one P&R in Bordeaux having 603 stalls [6], more than at the Canada line Bridgeport one [7]. Bordeaux has 14 other structures like this along its 3 trams lines…
park and Ride in Bordeaux, france. Notice the state of the track's lawn as soon as you get out of Downtown. credit photo (6)
One can clearly suspects that the motivation to introduce trams in the french cities has not been to challenge the general car centric culture, but was more guided by more pragmatic space constraint requiring a P&R model in order to preserve good vehicular movement on the city arteries and accessibility of the city to an ever greater number of people, including by car.
In that aspect, it has been a more successful model than the US one, eventually due to the greater scarity of
- downtown parking stall
- road access
and,
- the preserved heritage specificity of the European cities could have contributed to maintain the attractiveness of their downtown in despite of access impediment
- the short length of the European trams line, typically not venturing much farther than 5km from he town center, allow for short trip time, in despite of relatively low average speed [4], the later allowing good integration in the urban fabric
All those factor, in addition of social one going beyond the scope of this post, could have saved the middle size European city to know the fate of their American sister cities, in term of Downtown life.
But, if one considers the public transit market share in 14 french urban areas with LRT; 11% (for weekday trip) [8]; it is hard to speak of a successful strategy, to be emulated.
At the end of the day, the avenue original vision, which cheer size was to provide “park” space for people, devoided to be “park” space for transportation device, has not been restored. Indeed it is now used to “segregate” space according to transportation modes (in a vision where “lingering” is also a “commercialized” activity at the benefit of the sidewalk coffees).
It is a progress on the dictatorship of the automobile reign, and it is possible that the LRT has been an ingenuous tool to legitimate the displacement of the cars toward the outer edge of the city, but is the result the most efficient allocation of the city surface space? or in other term, is it the best we can do?
[1] from archives municipales de Rennes, France
[4] Average speed of european trams is usually below 20km/h, 18.5km/h in the above mentioned case of Bordeaux
[5] from Tram-Train/Tram F, Strasbourg-Bruche-Piémont des Vosges, June 2008
[6] Picture and number from le tram de Bordeaux”
[7] Bridgeport park has 600 stall for Canada line rider according to Translink
[8] Transportation mode share of 14 metropolitan area with tram in France, from “Les deplacements a Nantes metropole Etude N 80, decembre 2009, Insee Pays de Loire, France citing “enquêtes nationales transports et communication 1993-1994, transports et déplacements 2007-2008″, Insee, SOeS and Inrets.
Translink 2009 Annual report reviewed
May 13, 2010
The 209 annual report released at the Translink‘s AGM contains some interesting statements
The Skytrain
It is claimed that the “Expo and Millennium SkyTrain Lines are the most efficient, lowest-cost operations in North America” with a supporting comparison with some selected American LRT. One will wonder why, the figure doesn’t include the Calgary LRT?
GHG
An interesting figure comparing the GHG emission per mode seems to be a direct answer to prof. Patrick Condon claims stated in several of its publications [4]. Unfortunatly, Translink number doesn’t seems to be produced with much more rigor than the professor Patrick Condon’s one.
But the more interesting and worrisome numbers will require further reading of the report to get extracted:
Operating efficiency
| year | Number of revenue passengers in millions | Operating Cost in $Millions | Fare Revenue in $Millions | Operating cost recovery |
| 2005 | 160 | 516 | 284 | 56.4% |
| 2006 | 165 | 572 | 300 | 53.8% |
| 2007 | 172 | 621 | 316 | 52.5% |
| 2008 | 179 | 688 | 347 | 52% |
| 2009 | 188 | 735 | 355 | 49.8% |
Like eventually previously mentioned by the Translink commission, the growth strategy pursued by Translink appears non sustainable, in the sense that the ridership increase doesn’t translate in farebox recovery improvement. Worse, it degrades it.
To be sure Translink is not the only agency in this case, as we have seen in the Zurich model, but eventually the region could not spare a debate on the expected level of funding of transit operation (and subsidiary sources).
the Service rationalization initiative
In the immediate, the answer seems to be the service rationalization initiative. Some Observers seems to dismiss it [3] but it is probably a welcome move if done to ensure the sustainability of the ridership growth. Again, the Zurich model demonstrates that service, and consequently ridership, can be greatly improved by other means that piling out hours of transit service. here are some ideas we can provide:
Consolidate bus stop! Too often, bus stops are not very far apart. The picture below is the one along the 410 route between Aberdeen Station and Garden city road:
- East bound, the bus will stop every 200m on average!
- west bound, at Garden city intersection, 2 stops are spaced by no more than 50m, with no reasonable explanation for it
Those stops could be not such a draw on operation in off peak, but it will still involve a slowdown of the bus at stop without patron. At peak hour, it slowdown considerably the bus for marginal convenience (if any).
The consolidation of bus stops could not save too much time on one run, but in the case of the 410 route example, there is ~100 runs per direction a day, so the cumulative time can be not negligible.
In addition of time, the suppression of stops can certainly save other operational cost (less braking, acceleration,…), and can make the bus ride smoother.
Other strategy, not necessarily very costly to implement, like traffic signal preemption, can also help not only to save time, but to improve the bus operation efficiency and ride smoothness
“peak hour” determine the number of buses which need to be owned and maintained, and so can be expensive to serve, as it can be illustrated by the graph below ilustrating the translink’s bus service surge during peak hours[1]
number of Translink's bus in service according to time of a regular day
If Translink were coming with a fare structure favoring journey off peak hour, they could reduce this expensive peak pressure (hence reducing the number of bus to maintain and marginally operate…). An idea could be a discounted pass valid only after 9:30am (hence involving a return trip starting after 5:30pm for regular commute)…[2]
provide a “regular timetable” for low frequency route: this is almost the case for route like the 351, but there is lot of room for improvment on the 601.
On such route the schedule should be so simple that people could not need to have a timetable to know at what time their bus is schedule.
More elaborated strategies like “code sharing” should be investigated to provide high visibility of level of service.
Those last suggestions will note necessarily decrease the operating costs but are prone to attract more rider at no extra operational cost, and it is what Translink should explore for the time being, this to break out this vicious circle where, the “more people ride the system, the more subsidy it needs”
[1] the graph has been built by a contributor of the skyscraperpage forum
[2] The reader will find further discussion on the topic at the human transit blog
[3] TransLink on ‘life support’, Franck Luba, The province, May 12th. See also Geoff Meggs take on it.
[4] Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities, Patrick Condon, 2010 . The chapter 2 available here is built on a previous publication: A Cost Comparison of Transportation Modes, Patrick Condon and Kari Dow, Foundational research Bulletin, November 2009.
Rail Rapid Transit for Vancouver in 1962
May 7, 2010
The pictures below are the ones illustrating a “Rail Rapid Transit for metropolitan Vancouver (15Mbytes)” study by the Province of British Columbia in 1962.
More than the conclusion of the study, mostly done to appease opposition to freeways plan of the time [1], it is interesting to note how the authors of it place themselves in the “motordom” paradigm [2] , where public transit is merely considered as no more as a means to connect parkings to workplaces.
One will also note how the authors question “Why Vancouver should does differently of other cities?”… Other cities then investing massively in Freeway systems, and will put an extensive map section (7 Mbytes) tending to demonstrate how Vancouver freeways plan lag behind those other cities in term of ambition.
Congress street expressway later renamed the Dwight D. Eisenhower Expressway (I 290) , Chicago, Il
park and ride at Triskett station, Cleveland, Oh
The study presents some other interesting facts on the population and employment projections worth to revisit (the later not taking account the more distributed pattern of employment the future will bring).
[1] this is the report cited by Harry Rankin in its 1971 “beat the traffic rush” pamphlet
[2] The views expressed are not much different than the ones expressed in this May 1959 Buzzer edition
Bad gambling at BC place
March 28, 2010
The Province apparently desperate to find new sources of revenue to fund a non urgent and rather oddly timed BC place roof replacement by a questionable retractable roof, is going to allow Parangon to do more gambling around, but here let’s examine it in terms of urban contribution
First
A casino generating activity mostly in the evening is probably not a good addition able to bring some life to a sport precinct rather dull most of the time, except on evening event. Probably, a more general use like a shopping mall, and office could have been better, even if the Hotel component of the proposed complex could help a bit.
Secondly
let’s have an eyes at the proposal with whatever the public is allowed to see (i.e. not too much!)
This rendering suggests a rather blind and boxy podium, where sit 2 buildings atop, without real connection with the Podium, and even less with the streets. The complex/street interaction seems not well thought: See how the lack of pedestrian activity on the streets is revealing the mind of the designer (rendering from Parangon gaming)
.
The rendering suggests an improbable viewpoint under the Cambie Bridge (rendering from Parangon gaming). the building are separated of the street by a podium which is designed like to host a parkade
Unfortunately, The renderings available so far don’t present any realistic views one could experiment from the street. Furthermore the renderings suggest that the piece of land surrounded by Cambie St , Smithe St, and Expo Bld, as undevelopped. One can reasonably assumes it will be not the case, but the design with its “grand entrance” is not considering this probable outcome.
In the renderings, the traffic circle inclusion seems pretty odd and useless. In fact, it can have a function, since Smithe St extension could be not bidirectional on all its length, due to some complex traffic pattern at the Expo Bld and Smithe intersection ignored by the artist renderings In this context, it allows a U turn for the casino patrons.
By the way, it seems obvious to the designer that the casino patrons will arrive by car: In a reminiscence of the 60s era architecture design, the artist renderings affirm the supremacy of the “chauffeured car access” over the pedestrian whose will yield passage to the cars accessing the casino. The design also prevents access to the G gate of the BC place, or rather force the BC place patrons to be exposed to the gambling activities.
The parking access seems to be designed to be done through Pacific boulevard, where the renderings don’t reflect the current traffic pattern. That should be a matter of concerns, since, not only this is source of conflict with the busy traffic on the Pacific boulevard, but it is also an impediment to the pedestrian traffic which can be pretty heavy on event days.
Below could be a raison d’être for the traffic circle, as a distributor of the traffic toward casino car park and stadium , as well as a future development on the other side of the street, following in that the idea developed on NorthTown street in North York, ON. Its location should be chosen such it can also provide a seamless access to the stadium.
Note that the traffic circle, can allow an access to a “chauffeured car” zone, without disturbing the pedestrian traffic. At the end, one should consider the opportunity to tear down the Cambie bridge off-ramp onto pacific boulevard, to replace it by a less impacting one connecting more or less directly to the traffic circle, then acting as a traffic calming measure
an idea on how to capitalize on the traffic circle where the off ramp on Pacific boulevard could be teared down (Satellite picture from Google)
Overall the disappointing renderings are not “urban” enough and seem to pay little consideration to the context of the area and its streets.
Hopefully, it is only a very preliminary work. Unfortunately, on this matter, the Province seems to advance with little if any public input, and with no sense of responsibility when come to its contribution to the public realm.
Subway and LRT safety in France
March 12, 2010
the agency overseeing the “guided transportation systems” in France publishes some numbers worth to be repeated [1]. Though that the sample sizes prevent to draw definitive conclusions: we can still exhibit some trends: not surprisingly multi year studies tend to show that subways [2] are order of magnitude safer than LRTs [3]. This said, it is interesting to probe the source of tram accidents, what is provided by the graphs below.
partition and severity of tram accidents per year function of their location along the lines
Accidents partition per mode, and transportation modal share
It appears, that the bulk of accidents happen at intersections where they involve third parties. If car are responsible of most of the conflict, it is mainly, pedestrians and cyclists whose pay a disproportionate human toll considering the transportation modal sharing [11]. Furthermore, a study of the Belgium institute on road safety shows that while tram/pedestrian conflicts represent 2.1% of the overall pedestrian conflicts in Brussels, they result in more than 6.7% of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts with severe injuries [4] while that pedestrians represent more than 50% of the overall fatalities on the french trams network [1]. However, a non negligible number of accidents happen outside platforms and crossings: most of them involve emergency braking of the trams, which are responsible of most of the passenger casualties. The french agency has further detailed the pattern of crossing accident, and provides statistic per crossing:
yearly number of tram accidents per crossing, according to their severity type
Comparison with the US
It can be interesting to compare the french statistic to the American one, as reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Accident rate comparison between USA and France on LRt and subway network
Though that the accident ratio between subway and LRT witnessed in France is also founded in USA, there is a striking difference in the number of casualties per million of trip.
One explanation to it could be the suicide ratio:
- statistics are not including casualties due to suicide, but suicide characterization can be different according to the country. Thought that casualties due to suicide are not well documented, anecdotal evidences seem to show that the French authorities are more willing than the North American ones to classify an accident as a suicide: Some officious counting report around 70 suicides per year on the Parisian RATP metro alone [5], when this number is of around 30 in New York City [6], and 15 in Toronto [7]. For purpose of a study on the suicides in the Montreal subway, the researchers have requalified fatalities, considered as accident by the coroner, as suicide [8].
That said, the American LRTs still seem more prone to accident than their french counterpart. We can attempt some explanations to it. .
- LRT accidents are significantly due to third parties, and eventually the measure of accident/trip is unfavorable to the less patronized US LRT vehicle. This explanation can be countered by the fact that busy LRT lines involve busy pedestrians traffic around their route, hence increasing also the chance of accident.
- Average speed of french LRTs, usually in the 15 to 20km/h range is significantly slower than their american counter part
- Design of European LRT could be more permissibe too
- Front design of low floor european LRT seems less prone to drag pedestrian under the railcar
- All low floor design reduce the chance of fall inside the car in case of emergency braking
- More frequent LRT could increase the public awareness of their presence
- Due to the above factor, French LRT seem also less attractive than their US counterpart to suicide candidate
Compared to even recent American design, the European tram design features all low floor train,with “housed” coupler into an all “soft angle” front design, and offers an unobstructed view fro the driver…all these eventually help to prevent or reduce accident consequences (credit photo, Northfolk LRT: LRTA, Brussel tram in Vancouver: Stephen Rees)
Nantes, a real life example
A tramway accident in Nantes (credit photo: Presse Ocean)
To provide some more reality to the statistic, we provide the example of the Nantes Trams network [9]:
it has opened in 85, has 3 lines, totalizing 42km, and carrying an average of 266000 riders /day.
- One accident every 2 days
- One accident in 4 involves injuries
Interestingly enough, according to the Nantes transit agency, their BRT records a rate of accident twice less than their trams, though their buses go faster [9]. It is eventually due to a better designed right of way for the bus than for the trams .
[1] see Accidentologie des tramways, Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et des Transports Guidés DES TRAMWAYS, 2006 and
Accidentologie des metros, Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et des Transports Guidés DES TRAMWAYS, 2006
[2] French subways include also the “VAL” family of subway
[3] French LRTs include also the guided bus systems
[4] Etude des accidents entre un tram et un pieton en region de Bruxelles-capitale
[5] Suicides dans le métro : deux morts par semaine à Paris, France Info, October 30, 2007
[8] Qui se tue dans le métro de Montréal?, Brian L. Mishara, UQAM, Dec 1996
[9] Un accident de tramway en moyenne tous les deux jours, October 7, 2008, Presse Ocean, Nantes, France
[10] The rate per million of passengers is not necessarily the most relevant, but it is the only one readily available from the french statistics, which are averaged on the number of available years after 2003 to provide a more relevant sample size. For USA, to increase the sample size, the accident statistics are the average of year 1994 to 2006, as provided by the BTS 2009 report
[11] Transportation mode share of 14 metropolitan area with tram in France, from “Les deplacements a Nantes metropole Etude N 80, decembre 2009, Insee Pays de Loire, France citing “enquêtes nationales transports et communication 1993-1994, transports et déplacements 2007-2008″, Insee, SOeS and Inrets.
The Gordon’s Lanes
March 5, 2010
recently the BC government made some budget announcement concerning transportation [7] and transit observers will have noticed a shortage of funding for “number one priority” transit project when the deep unbalance between transit and road investment could call for a better equilibrium as we have already noticed…but to add insult to injury, the government is not hesitating to make up the number for transit…and the Gordon’s Lanes illustrate how.
These Gordon’s Lanes are the bus lanes announced with great fanfares (and funded at 50% by the provincial government):
- 16$ millions for a “bus lane” on highway 7 in Pitt Meadows [1] where there is no bus route
- 13$ millions for a “bus lane” on Highway 99 in Surrey [2] where there is only one regular bus route serviced every 15mn [3] and little congestion
Every one in Lower Mainland, with a little sense of observation, can easily think of way better transit investment [4]: If the government was serious about transit it could have easily found some investment bringing more bang for the buck!
So what is the real reason of those bus lanes?
Those Bus lanes will be also HOV one obviously!
Not that there is something wrong with it, but what is certainly wrong is to tout an investment as “transit” when the obvious reason is only to create more road capacity, which will be marginally used by public transit services if any.
Where the cynicism of government proves to be boundless is that it will fund this road investment from earmarked “transit money” [6]
.
The Gordon’s bus lanes fallacy shows how our shameless government is willing to ostensibly burn our tax money on complete useless project while it refuses to address real pressing public transit need. This strategy will accredits the idea in the general public that public transit is no more than a waste of tax payer money…
It shows that the contempt of our Government for the public transit matter is even worse that most could suspect
[7] Prime minister, premier announce 15 new projects, March 1st, 2010
[3] it is the bus 351, Crescent Beach, Bridgeport. route 352 and 354 are peak service only
[4] Examples of sounder investment include the Surrey 399B line (which has been ditched due to lack of funding) or improvement of the bus traffic on Highway 99 in its Richmond part : for example the Hy 99 North bound doesn’t have bus lanes south of Westminster highway, there is no queue jumper at the Bridgeport exit, used by all suburban buses connecting with Canada line, ..investment here could benefit to the existing bus route targeted by the government funding among other converging to Bridgeport station. One could also give a look at the 699B line idea to foster an attractive transit presence in our suburbs…
[5] Eventually the government will deny it (remember the HST?), but there is no doubt on the fate of under used lanes
[6] The Blog follower will have also noted that the “hydrogen bus” experiment is funded from transit “earmarked money”…
The name "Voony" comes from the name of the author's family cat. The author is the guy in the picture. This blog revolves mainly around transportation and urban issues in the Vancouver area.
