STM : Tramway

[Malek]

Mes hypothèses:

 

1-vitesse maximale à 50kmh, je verais mal que les tramways aurait le droit d'aller plus vite que la circulation locale et la vitesse légale. En réalité, ça sera beaucoup plus lent vu le raprochement des arrêts d'autobus si c'est oui en 2.

 

2-J'espère que non, sinon ou est l'utilité du tramway d'emmener rapidement les gens à leur destinations.

 

3-Tramways = 2 bus normalement, comme les bus en accordéons qu'on a. Par contre certains pourraient être l'équivalent de 3 bus... reste a voir comment ça va être à montréal.

[Gbx]

Can someone answer these questions:

 

1- What is the speed of a tramway?

2- Will it stop at every stop like a bus does?

3- What is the capacity of a typical tramway?

 

I know you're a tramskeptic but following my experience with the newest generation of tram in Europe I think they are nearly as good as a metro for a fraction of the price (again, don't look at the old toronto tram which is totally outdated). It is fast, reliable, comfortable (way more than the montreal metro!) and has much more capacity than a bus plus it stops about as often as a metro and adds to the urban feeling of the place. This would be great for areas that wouldn't qualify for metro because of lower pop density or costs.

 

But to answer your question after a little survey on the Bombardier website:

1- The Milan tram can go as fast as 70km/h and 65 km/h for the Strasbourg tram.

2- According to my experience, about the same as a metro

3- The Milan tram can accomodate 124 standing people (4 pass per square meter) and has 68 seats. The Strasbourg tram has 92 seats and 178 passengers can fit in there (again 4 pass per square meter)

 

Edit:

 

Here's a picture of the tram in Milan, as you see, it is much bigger than 2 buses

 

[Malek]

oh yeah definitly, i'm just wonderin who this type of tramway will fare in René lévesque and Parc.

[GoMontreal]

Road to hell is paved with public transit

 

NEIL REYNOLDS

Globe and Mail

 

May 21, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT

 

The average public transit bus in the U.S. uses 4,365 British thermal units, a measure of energy, per passenger mile and emits 0.71 pounds of carbon dioxide. The average car uses 3,445 BTUs per passenger mile and emits 0.54 pounds of CO{-2}. Whether you seek to conserve energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, your public policy decision here appears remarkably obvious. Get people off buses and get them into cars. The decision to do precisely this will get progressively easier. By 2020, the average car will use only 3,000 BTUs per passenger mile; by 2035, only 2,500 BTUs. By this time, the car will be – by far – the greenest option in the 21st century urban transit system.

 

Thus calculates Randal O'Toole, an Oregon economist with impeccable environmental credentials. Senior economist for a number of years with the Thoreau Institute (an environmental think tank in Portland) and lecturer in environmental economics at Yale and at the University of California at Berkeley, Mr. O'Toole has been described as the next Jane Jacobs, the influential contrarian environmentalist who ironically worked in more innocent times to keep cars out of North American downtowns. Author of provocative books such as The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths and The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Mr. O'Toole is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, the Washington-based libertarian think tank. He reportedly cycles to work every day.

 

Most public transit systems, Mr. O'Toole says in a research paper published in April, have never done the job that governments entrusted to them, which was to move large numbers of people safely to work in the morning and to move them safely back home at night. (On the basis of every billion passenger miles, he asserts, “light-rail [public transit] kills three times as many people as cars on urban freeways.”) Judged on either environmental or economic efficiency, he says, public transit systems consistently produce diminishing returns.

 

New York operates the most energy-efficient system in the U.S. – but only because its buses carry an average of 17 passengers, or 60 per cent more “load” than the 10.7 passengers carried by the average public transit bus nationwide. (The average public transit bus has seats for 39 people and standing room for 20.) New York keeps losing market share to cars, too. In 1985, the public transit share of passenger travel in New York was 12.7 per cent, far ahead of the No. 2 system (with a 5.2 per cent share) in Chicago. By 2005, though, the public transit share in New York had fallen to 9.6 per cent; Chicago, in the same period, had fallen to 3.7 per cent. At the lower end, Buffalo fell from a 1.2 per cent share of the passenger market to 0.6 per cent; Sacramento fell to a 0.7 per cent share from 0.9 per cent.

 

The great boondoggle of the past few years, Mr. O'Toole says, has been light rail, a fashionable alternative to heavy rail, the underground subway train.

 

“Most heavy-rail systems are less efficient than the average passenger car and none is as efficient as a Toyota Prius,” Mr. O'Toole says. “Most light-rail systems use more energy per passenger mile than an average passenger car, some are worse than the average light truck and none is as efficient as a Prius.” Curiously, the Prius delivers exceptional mileage but emits roughly the same greenhouse gases (per passenger mile) as the average car and average public transit train.

 

Perhaps because they remain market-driven enterprises, cars and trucks have eclipsed buses and trains – by a wide margin – in energy-efficiency advances in the past generation. Americans drive four times as many miles as they did 40 years ago but produce less than half as much automotive air pollution. Some new cars pollute less than 1 per cent as much as new cars did in the 1970s.

 

Public transit buses are a different story. In 1970, the average bus used 2,500 BTUs per passenger mile; by 2005, it used 4,300 BTUs, a 70 per cent increase. In 1970, by way of contrast, light trucks used 9,000 BTUs per passenger mile; in 2005, they used 4,300 – a decrease of 50 per cent. The average pickup truck is now as energy efficient now, per passenger mile, as the average bus.

 

“The fuel economies for bus transit have declined in every five-year period since 1970,” Mr. O'Toole says. Why? U.S. public transit agencies keep buying larger and more expensive vehicles – and then driving around town with fewer people in them. In 1982, the average number of bus occupants was 13.8; by 2006, it was 10.7.

 

“Since 1992, American cities have invested $100-billion in urban rail transit,” Mr. O'Toole says. “Yet no city in the country has managed to increase [public] transit's share of commuters by more than 1 per cent. No city has managed to reduce driving by even 1 per cent. People respond to high fuel prices by buying more efficient cars – and then driving more.”

 

Friday: How to end traffic congestion and get rapid transit.

[Malek]

ouchhhhhhhhhh, il faut que je relise ça pour m'assurer de bien avoir compris

[JamesLawlor]

I suggest that you look at the other side of the argument such as this :

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-04.htm

 

The original source of this article comes from the Cato Institute (not the

Thoreau Institute) and can be found here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-615.pdf

[ToxiK]

Ce n'est pas la première fois que Neil Reynolds écrit un article dénigrant le transport en commun. Il est de l'idéologie pro-voiture et anti transport en commun (surtout quand c'est payé par les taxes). Il a droit à ses opinions, mais je ne me baserais pas sur ses articles pour me faire une opinion sur les tramways de la même façon que je ne me baserais pas sur les articles de Ann Coulter pour me faire une idée du parti Démocrate aux États-Unis.

[Malek]

bon... regardez toronto, leur ROW pour le street est dans l'eau chaude...

 

Je vois pas comment à Montréal on serait mieux avec nos petites rues étroites.

 

-================================

 

St. Clair Streetcar Right Of Way In Jeopardy

Wednesday June 18, 2008

CityNews.ca Staff

The debates raged before it was even installed. Businesses complained it would cut foot traffic and construction would tie up their storefronts; while commuters wanted a faster way downtown.

 

Now that it's up and running, the St Clair Streetcar is facing another problem: is it safe?

 

Toronto Fire Services raised the alarm on the dedicated right of way that stretches from Yonge to Bathurst, and will eventually extend to Gunns Road. In a letter to Councillor Cesar Palacio, they said the route hampered their work.

 

"Concerns of public safety, where thousands and thousands of people along St. Clair, inside their community, could be at risk," Palacio described.

 

Fire officials claim the road is unsafe and could cause critical delays in response times and even problems fighting fires.

 

"You think the city would have considered that before they did all this. And they didn't," joked one area resident.

 

The fire chief claims he did share his concerns with the TTC before construction began.

 

In a detailed letter, officials say part of the problem is that this road would be too narrow. They also say that there's a chance pedestrians waiting for streetcars here could be hit by an emergency vehicle.

 

 

Toronto Fire Chief William Stewart claims that the raised streetcar lines add crucial minutes to his department's response time.

 

"The issue for us is, if we have to use the right-of-way...for emergency response...if we have to get up on that raised right-of-way, we have to maneuver. We have very little minimal space to operate that truck on. And protect you coming off the truck," explains Stewart.

 

Another concern is at the curb, which is nine inches high in spots. Instead of quickly zipping in and out of traffic, as it would on a regular road, the fire truck has to climb over it.

 

 

"There were all sorts of issues around sidewalk width, road width," agrees TTC spokesperson Brad Ross.

 

"The safety concerns of Toronto Fire were absolutely considered, and my understanding with Toronto Fire is that they understand that they can use the right-of-way for short periods. It's not designed to be driven on permanently. It's not a fire route as I say. It's designed to be used in emergency situations," Ross argues.

 

"Well that would be a fair statement - if you had a street that wasn't totally blocked," countered Stewart.

 

 

It's the poles that distinguish this route from similar right of way lines on Queen's Quay and Spadina. Emergency vehicles don't have the same problems on those streets.

 

According to Palacio, the right of way will not be complete until 2011. Plenty of time, he says, to redraw the plans.

 

"It's our responsibility to create a safe environment for residents, especially when their safety is going to be compromised because of this project," he vowed.

 

On CityOnline, Palacio pointed to the existence of dedicated lanes on Spadina and Queen's Quay, but said the TTC has not been forthcoming with its reports from the area.

 

"We've asked for that information for over four years from...the TTC. We've said, okay, you have this experience on Queen's Quay and Spadina with the right-of-way. So what's happened? Has response time been affected? And you know they can't find that data to give it to us."

[cjb]

La majorité du réseau initial prévu à Montréal va passer soit sur des rues presque désertes ( axe de l'autoroute bonaventure) et une voie ferrée désaffectée (Vieux-Port).

 

Ce sera avant tout un tramway touristique, qui permettra aux touristes et à la population locale de se déplacer plus rapidement dans la ville centre sans utiliser de voitures, donc cela réduira la congestion souvent importante dans le vieux-montréal.

De plus, cela sera une vitrine nord-américaine pour le savoir-faire de Bombardier, et plusieurs touristes américains pourraient rentrer chez eux jaloux.

Ça pourrait repartir le mouvement tramway en amérique.

[Habsfan]

Ça pourrait repartir le mouvement tramway en amérique.

 

On va se garder les doigts croisés!