|
I am Not A Traffic Engineer, but I can tell you making bike paths so small that it's impossible for faster bikers to pass causes rather dangerous situations. Yes, racing bikers can be annoying. But on the other hand, you have grandma cycling at nearly walking pace while others are going at a steady 15 km/h. If there's no place to pass, those faster cyclists will swerve onto the sidewalk, and if the bump doesn't make them fall, some pedestrians might have to jump out of the way. At busy intersections, racers drat, I keep typing racists can't really pass waiting cyclists, because everyone wants to be in the front, so they'll clog up the part just before the crossing completely. On a related note, in Holland, the law says that up to two cyclists are allowed to cycle next to each other, even on car roads. It might be more dangerous, but an advantage is that you can bike with a friend or colleague, making cycling even more favorable as a daily activity. Another advantage is that if an adult is cycling with a young child, the child can ride close to the sidewalk while the adult is on the 'car side', so car drivers can see the larger adult better and the adult can protect the child if necessary. It's considered good behaviour to move behind each other for a bit if a car is behind you and can't pass otherwise. However, many roads have been adapted so there's enough space for two cyclists next to each other while cars can still safely pass. On two-way bike roads, it's not uncommon to see two people riding together while a third, faster cyclist passes them on the left. Baronjutter posted:What's up with that turn lane? Is that a turn lane for bikes?? But it only leads to a parking ramp for cars. Everything there looks good but I can't figure out that bike-lane sized turning lane. It is a turning lane for cars. A bike lane with dashed lines means cars are allowed to drive there. So, cars turning right will be on the bike lane with their left half for a little while. They are moving slowly because they have to turn anyway, so it shouldn't cause any problems. Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 14, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That's like a full width/height railway platform pretty much! Obviously wider is better but I have limited space so I'd like the absolute minimum for a platform. Heck in Prague I saw situations where the platform was maybe 1m wide, then there was a road lane, and then across from that was the shelter on the sidewalk. Is it just the whole sidewalk goes up and turns into a station platform? The platform is 23 inches above the rail head/road surface and have the ramps up to them to ensure no-step access for disabled accessibility compliance. It matches the vehicles used. You also have to keep in mind that platforms too narrow will be very hard for wheelchair users to navigate. Every new rail project in America has to ensure accessible access even though already built systems are allowed to remain their previous non-accessible selves for quite a while. Also in this case it's not the entire sidewalk that goes up, there's still a good 5 or 6 feet of sidewalk behind the platform section. The interiors of the cars are like this:  With the ramped platforms up to that height, there's room and ability for up to 16 standard sized wheelchairs to be in each permanently connected engine module and passenger cabins vehicle, and half of the normal seating is same-floor level so that people with other accessibility concerns don't have to climb. In each passenger compartment there's also one of the wheelchair areas with mounted hooks for securing 3 bikes as well as people holding their bikes in the vestibule area. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:A bike lane with dashed lines means cars are allowed to drive there. Cars are allowed to pass or maneuver over the dashed line, which is the same rule that applies to a bidirectional road with a dashed line in the median, but they're not supposed to drive there continuously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I can't imagine being in a wheelchair in Europe, or really anywhere outside of North America. As an able-bodied person I loving love europe, everything is compact and pedestrian, but also for the most part totally impossible to make wheelchair friendly. Like in those Dutch or Czech examples how is a disabled person suposed to get on a tram when all you have is a narrow 1m platform that's no higher than a sidewalk, has no curb cuts, and even if the tram is low-flow (which it probably won't be) you've still got a pretty big step from the curb to the tram, plus no room for a ramp to fold out because 1m platform. But when you've got thousand year old road widths lined with buildings you can't move it's better to have transit that's accessible to 99% of people rather than no transit at all. I sometimes feel due to strict accessibility and safety rules in north america we often get the later because the we can't stomach the former. So with a curb on both sides (ie no car lane to briefly enter into for extra space) how wide should a single-directional bike lane be while still giving room to pass grandma riding slower than a tourist walks? http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/one-way-protected-cycle-tracks/ This guide tells me 7' and that seems about right, that's just over 2m, that works. So here are my final 2 designs, unless there's any major complaints or problems I'm going to go and build this drat this! For stops  Between stops (bike lane could get a touch wider too)  The very wide sidewalks will be pretty important. First of all it's a very busy area, but it also provides parking and space for things like street vendors and furniture. I promise these are the last I'm going to post. Thank you guys so much for all the feedback! Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Often it's people with disabilities who need public transit the very most. This is why cities that already have entrenched transit that's not very accessible have to have paratransit services available and make accessibility adjustments to their infrastructure whenever possible. And why they are never allowed to build a new system that's inaccessible from the start. The flipside of car based layouts and sprawl is that you never have an excuse of "oh we don't have enough room to make our new thing accessible" when you're retrofitting transit to bare roads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So with a curb on both sides (ie no car lane to briefly enter into for extra space) how wide should a single-directional bike lane be while still giving room to pass grandma riding slower than a tourist walks? No that sounds about right, the Dutch 'cycling embassy' (sounds weird, but it comes out of CROW which is a standards institute) gives 2m./6'7" as a bare minimum for one-way bike paths (ie, separated from other traffic, vice lanes, which are just tacked on to existing roads in local parlance). They even state (.doc) that this should go up to 3.5/4m. for busy paths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I can't imagine being in a wheelchair in Europe, or really anywhere outside of North America. As an able-bodied person I loving love europe, everything is compact and pedestrian, but also for the most part totally impossible to make wheelchair friendly. Like in those Dutch or Czech examples how is a disabled person suposed to get on a tram when all you have is a narrow 1m platform that's no higher than a sidewalk, has no curb cuts, and even if the tram is low-flow (which it probably won't be) you've still got a pretty big step from the curb to the tram, plus no room for a ramp to fold out because 1m platform. I've seen this, the controller on the tram grabs a ramp that's situated near the door manually and puts it there. All the buses and most of the trams (except for some older ones) are low flow. Not in Prague though, they had a lot of older trams there. In general, quite an effort is made here to make things more easy for the disabled --- ped signals with sounds, and those ribbed pathways on the sidewalks for the blind to follow, for example. But sometimes the system is a bit primitive due to other constraints, I guess. At least in the area where I grew up, they made all the bus stops wheelchair-accessible and level with the bus doors. Not sure how that is in Amsterdam. At least with the trams they haven't been able to do it everywhere, and use the manual ramps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
You need to think about how people are going to get to the tram stops. Everything has to be handicap accessible, which means treating the bike paths as roads and putting ramps up/down/across. Those ramps will need to be wide enough for 2 wheelchairs to go past each other, and then you may as well just keep the bike lane at grade, with a little 4" curb between it and the peds, with curb breaks for the platforms. Still, though, it's not ideal to have the bikes split like that. You'll have a really hard time discouraging 'wrong way' bikers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You need to think about how people are going to get to the tram stops. Everything has to be handicap accessible, which means treating the bike paths as roads and putting ramps up/down/across. Those ramps will need to be wide enough for 2 wheelchairs to go past each other, and then you may as well just keep the bike lane at grade, with a little 4" curb between it and the peds, with curb breaks for the platforms. Still, though, it's not ideal to have the bikes split like that. You'll have a really hard time discouraging 'wrong way' bikers. Yeah I plan on having the side walk and the bike lanes almost at grade, just a slight mountable dip and change in material to mark the bike lane, not like a full big 90 degree curb or anything. Basically going to do it just like in that Dutch example Entropist posted. I had the bikes not split before, but everyone told me to split them and it seems to be what they do in the Netherlands. I really can't imagine wrong way bikers will be problem any time during the day as a bike would go like 50m before smashing into another bike. During rush hour I'd see the lane being pretty full. Entropist, are wrong-way bikers a problem that example in amsterdam near the station you posted that almost exactly matches what I'm doing, other than the car lane?  Mine is almost exactly the same except I have much wider platforms and you're only crossing a single direction bike lane to get there. Also how did those service vehicles get on the sidewalk? Just drove on the bike lane and parked there? This is another thing I love about transport in Europe, there's a lot more of these blurred lines and shared spaces, they just make do with the space they have and it works, some how so much better. http://goo.gl/maps/mlfUc WRONG WAY CYCLIST SPOTTED!!  Maybe this is a problem? Or maybe people only do it when the lanes are clear. There's so much more wiggle room with bikes and peds! A bike going a few blocks down a wrong-way bike lane at 7am only passing a couple other bikes isn't a problem, while someone driving their car on the wrong side of a freeway at 7am, even if they only have to pass a few other cars, is a major problem. The slower and more maneuverable the mode of transport the lower the need for strict rules. When you get all the way down to the pedestrian, they can basically go where the gently caress they want and will heed no rules. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I plan on having the side walk and the bike lanes almost at grade, just a slight mountable dip and change in material to mark the bike lane, not like a full big 90 degree curb or anything. Basically going to do it just like in that Dutch example Entropist posted. Wrong way biking is also an art. If you are doing it, you have to know that you're an unwanted guest and be extra careful. You can expect to be shouted at or rammed off the road if you don't yield. It happens a lot a few streets over, where there is strangely only a (separated) bike path one way, but other than that it's not so common, and people only do it for short distances or when it's quiet. You also see it more on separated bike paths (like that person is doing) than on bike lanes, where you'd also have to deal with cars coming the other way which is much more dangerous. Baronjutter posted:Also how did those service vehicles get on the sidewalk? Just drove on the bike lane and parked there? This is another thing I love about transport in Europe, there's a lot more of these blurred lines and shared spaces, they just make do with the space they have and it works, some how so much better. Baronjutter posted:Maybe this is a problem? Or maybe people only do it when the lanes are clear. There's so much more wiggle room with bikes and peds! A bike going a few blocks down a wrong-way bike lane at 7am only passing a couple other bikes isn't a problem, while someone driving their car on the wrong side of a freeway at 7am, even if they only have to pass a few other cars, is a major problem. The slower and more maneuverable the mode of transport the lower the need for strict rules. When you get all the way down to the pedestrian, they can basically go where the gently caress they want and will heed no rules. Entropist fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
 How do I make this work? Green is bike lanes, blue is tram track. Dark gray is car-road. I'm guessing it would have a signal like a normal 4-way intersection but I'm mostly confused how to paint the bike lanes through the intersection and how left turns and stuff would work. Would I need like cat-tracks or anything? Or just "they're bikes, they'll figure it the gently caress out" ? I'm also worried that someone making a left turn would go too close to the tram tracks and hit them parallel and wipe out. *edit* gently caress I just noticed the shared road/tram track is going the wrong way!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
Since there are purpose-built bicycle lanes involved in this layout, I highly recommend having some kind of track filler installed where the bike lanes cross the tracks, lest someone get caught in the groove and flip. This is also why bikes and trams should NOT share the same phase in such a situation, as a safety precaution in case someone does get slotted. There have been quite a few cyclist injuries/deaths in Toronto and other cities with a mixed traffic setup due to cyclists getting slotted and having a tram run them over. Hell, cyclists die even when there aren't trams using the track. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Why would standard signalling be a bad idea? If it's cars yielding to bikes there would be times of the days that the cars just wouldn't ever have a chance. In this situation it's more protection for the cars to at least have some chance to get through the throngs of bikes and peds. Should I add extra wide bike lanes at the intersection to collect bikes waiting at the light and help spread left/right/straight traffic? I figured fairly short phases to keep everyone moving and something that detects trams coming and stop movements that might hit it. Would a "rush hour mode" where the road gets a signal to get through the mass of bikes and peds but otherwise function as normal crosswalk work? Anyways, just imagine the tram line coming from the north goes on the left lane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why would standard signalling be a bad idea? If it's cars yielding to bikes there would be times of the days that the cars just wouldn't ever have a chance. In this situation it's more protection for the cars to at least have some chance to get through the throngs of bikes and peds. Should I add extra wide bike lanes at the intersection to collect bikes waiting at the light and help spread left/right/straight traffic? I figured fairly short phases to keep everyone moving and something that detects trams coming and stop movements that might hit it. Edit: Something like this, with bicycle accomodations. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
Baronjutter, this is an upgrade to Melbourne's busiest tram route in the middle of the city, Swanston Street. This picture below shows the section where delivery vehicles and taxis are no longer allowed to enter, emergency vehicles drive along the tramlines. The Zebra striped sections are the bikebath (they have painted bike symbols now) while the unstriped bluestone paving next to the tramline is where passengers can get on and off and also widens the bikelanes when trams are not stopped.  IMG_20111129_104919 by urbanbicyclist, on Flickr This picture further up the road shows the footpath on the left and the tramstop right infront of the bikelane, right before a tram arrives people can walk onto the bikepath and hop on the tram. Bike riders are not allowed to pass a stationary tram, like cars, unless the doors are closed and only passing very slowly.  IMG_20111129_105122 by urbanbicyclist, on Flickr At Night:  Because most footpaths in melbourne are bluestone paving they added the yellow line to help show the edge of the bikelanes more clearly.  And here is what that city block looked like before the redevelopment: Googlestreetview circa 2010-2011
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
I'm glad the added the explicit exception to trams otherwise a tram driver might detour thinking he wasn't allowed down that road. Looks good! Cool to see how more developed places handle their trams and infrastructure. Does anyone actually follow the "no passing a passed tram rule"? I'd just ride around the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Because most footpaths in melbourne are bluestone paving they added the yellow line to help show the edge of the bikelanes more clearly. Oh, a place to park my bicycle! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Does anyone actually follow the "no passing a passed tram rule"? I'd just ride around the crowd. There is a university across the road and one of the central stations is underground with entrances just near that corner. But generally people stop for trams, that section could have 4 trams waiting for the lights with closed doors so cyclists might end up going fast beside them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
What are the cross-over tracks just before the stop for? Did the line used to end there or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Nah, incase of a breakdown and they need to tow a tram out or re-route a service or the road is closed for an activity etc. They are scattered throughout the network, near major intersections etc. There is 250km of track in Melbourne across around 30 routes, about half of those routes end up at Melbourne University and travel along Swanston Street, so there is a lot of tram traffic during the day. The city is slowly upgrading streets to reduce the number or regular tram stops in the inner city and replace them with platform style 'super stops' to allow easier disability access and protect users as they hop on and off. This is one such superstop outside Finders Street Station and between Federation Square, just on the edge of the city it'll see a lot of trams queued up https://www.google.com/maps/preview...1_alA!2e0&fid=5 Collins Street, (think Australias 5th or Madison Avenues), has been upgraded and traffic is one lane while adjacent to platform stop. Outside of the city though most trams run with traffic, some sections of some routes have dedicated lanes which cars are only allowed to enter to turn or boulevard style tracks running down a median and other parts it is mixed traffic. Here is a video I took the other week of one of the two new trams doing driver training. 50 of these locally built E class trams have been ordered, two entered service two weeks ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgqXeZ2DYZ0
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm also worried that someone making a left turn would go too close to the tram tracks and hit them parallel and wipe out. It's a pretty legitimate concern. The last major bike crash I was in was because of an embedded railway just like this one that was turning right. The more gentle the slope, the more likely that a bike tire will get caught in the groove.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
I've seen two approaches for left-turning with bikes from a bike lane. One, which is used in Holland, is that the cyclist will signal going left, then carefully move left onto the place cars wait until they can turn left, and then do a direct left turn from there. In some cases, there's a special left-turn bicycle lane between the left turn car lane and the lane for cars that go straight ahead. The other, which was implemented everywhere in Copenhagen, is that cyclists keep to the right of the road, go straight ahead, then just before the end of the intersection turn slighty right, make a hard left turn, and then stop and wait. This way they end up at the very front of the road coming from the right, and they just have to make another straight pass when their light turns green to complete their left turn. Of course, this is for bike lanes on a regular road. Separated bike paths usually have their own little intersections and you can just follow those to get where you want. In any case, as far as I've seen, both approaches work well, as long as both cyclists and car drivers are used to it and know what to expect. However, while I cycle at least three times per week in Holland I felt like a horrible amateur the day I went cycling in Copenhagen. It was so different to what I was used to, I had to be really careful to not make stupid mistakes. Added to that the fact that Copenhagen cyclists use an extra hand signal, hand straight up means "I'm gonna stop". This signal is not used in Holland at all, I guess we Dutch just figure that people can see you slowing down. I tried to use the go-right-to-go-left-turn and that stop signal, but it was really difficult for me. Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Both of those approaches are also used in the Netherlands, depending on how many bikes vs cars pass the intersection I guess. We don't generally have special facilities for crossing tram tracks by bike, people know to be careful and you're not going to get stuck in it unless you drive almost directly parallel to the tracks, which you usually wouldn't have reason to do.Baronjutter posted:How do I make this work? Here is such an intersection with tram tracks turning off the main route (and the next intersection too): http://goo.gl/maps/fU5yB Also featuring cobblestone, bike lanes and bikes from each direction (the smaller road crossing this street doesn't have bike lanes and is mainly used by bikes anyway).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I've seen two approaches for left-turning with bikes from a bike lane. There's a third option: simultaneous green lights for all bike lanes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
For anyone interested in bike applications, check out the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, available for free on the internet: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ It's pretty comprehensive about detailing the various shalls, shoulds, and options of design features. It has diagrams of the second method Carbon Dioxide mentioned (Two Stage Turn Queue Boxes).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
What advantages do rail-trams offer over buses? Seems like the disadvantages are huge, what with the massive infrastructure investment and safety risk that tracks pose to bicyclists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Trams can easily be made longer, so you can get more passengers in one tram. In the Dutch city of Utrecht, during rush hour thousands of students are trying to get from the train station to the university campus or back. Right now, they use these bi-articulated buses:  There's a bus every 2 or 3 minutes. But it's not enough, it still feels like a cattle transport in there. So, currently they're building a new 'tram line' from the station to the campus, which will replace the buses and should make it easier to get all those people to where they need to be. They call it a 'sneltram' (fast tram), and it's actually more like a light rail thing with lots of level crossings. An interesting fact is that like half a century ago, there were tram lines everywhere in Holland. Many towns and villages were connected by tram. It's quite hard to believe now, but you can still see it by roads called 'Tram Rd' popping up in unexpected places. I think cars (and buses) were less common then, so it made sense. The city of Utrecht also had tram lines. They were all removed decades ago. Buses, car roads and bike lanes were the new way to go. And now they're building these light rail lines. It kinda feels like history repeating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Capacity is the big thing, though trams are also more energy efficient. Trams can also be routed in ways that a bus cannot - for instance going into building depots, skyways or underground tunnels that would be too dangerous to build as a public road, as well as existing railways. Electric trams are also zero-emissions (though of course the power plants are not), which improves city air quality (a consistent problem for densely populated areas) and noise quality. There's also an argument that they are cheaper than buses in the long-run because they reduce the operator costs as compared to running buses (i.e. two articulated buses as compared to a single tram). And then there are the more subjective benefits like the improved aesthetic of a tram, or the smoother ride of a tram. Here's a corporate advocacy paper about it: http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/The-Modern-Tram-in-Europe.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
I'd assume that given that they get their own dedicated right-of-way, they're going to be much less impacted by traffic than a bus would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Capacity is the big thing, though trams are also more energy efficient. There's a lot less friction for a vehicle using steel flanges on a rail, compared to one using rubber tires, yes? edit: grover posted:What advantages do rail-trams offer over buses? Seems like the disadvantages are huge, what with the massive infrastructure investment and safety risk that tracks pose to bicyclists. As a method of transport, trams/streetcars do have higher capacity and use less power* than an equivalent bus, but that isn't the main reason why a lot of cities are pursuing them. Instead, it's using a form of transit that people find attractive, as a means of encouraging redevelopment. I know that in Portland and Seattle, at least, they've promoted their streetcar systems that way. Also, us cyclists will do fine, thank you.  *: I am not an engineer, but don't streetcars have more mass than buses, usually? When taking that into account, opposite the fact that there's less friction for streetcars, and that drawing current from an overhead line is more efficient than having it be self-propelled**, which system ends up using less energy in its day-to-day operation? At least, if they had equal ridership, since the system that has more people on it has to deal with that extra mass, although relative to the mass of the vehicle itself, it's probably negligible**? **: Once again, I am not an engineer. Hedera Helix fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'd assume that given that they get their own dedicated right-of-way, they're going to be much less impacted by traffic than a bus would be. True and that helps reduce vehicular congestion, but you can also use bus-only expressways to achieve the same effect. Eugene has started building them along the major traffic corridors, and they work very well as a stopgap solution for a small city that is pushing the limits of bus transit during peak usage but can't support a full tram system. The roads are distinctive to discourage public usage (they're actually grass expressways with asphalt tracks for the bus wheels) and ensure that public transit remains efficient and ontime regardless of vehicular congestion. They incidentally will also maintain the city's right-of-way if Eugne ends up wanting to install a full tram-system in 30 years. Hedera Helix posted:There's a lot less friction for a vehicle using steel flanges on a rail, compared to one using rubber tires, yes? Yes, and also because the vehicles are electric-powered and can transport more people per vehicle. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Well utilized rail lines will have a lower cost per rider than buses will. The biggest operating cost in transit is labor, and rail allows a single operator to carry more passengers (though you could ruin that by requiring conductors or something on board the train...).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Instead, it's using a form of transit that people find attractive, as a means of encouraging redevelopment. That's actually a good point, and I have to admit that when I started working at my current job, I was willing to look at the light rail from the train station to near where I work, but I never considered the bus system at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:In the Dutch city of Utrecht, during rush hour thousands of students are trying to get from the train station to the university campus or back. Right now, they use these bi-articulated buses: Gothenburg, Sweden, are also using bi-articulated buses as a stopgap until the budget allows new tram tracks. Those things are fricking huge! Like in Utrecht, they run 3-minute traffic in rush hour, between the transportation hub (railway station etc) and a university campus. Still packed like sardines, but at least they have dedicated bus lanes for most of their stretch so it's fairly reliable. It took some pretty major investment to create those bus lanes, but still less than laying down rails and hanging power lines. (Due to the length of the buses, they had to redesign some intersections and corners. No way those things can make a tight 90 degree turn.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Trams can easily be made longer, so you can get more passengers in one tram. Ghent has trams from the main station that pass through most of the major student neighborhoods and campuses, as well as an extensive bus network that fills in the gaps. Infuriatingly though, the service starts to ramp down at 19.30 when most students arrive in the city. So you get trainloads of students (with included luggage) waiting for transport that only comes every 15 minutes and has the chance to be a small PCC streetcar, though they've improved on that last part. There was some talk about the Cycle Superhighway 2 in London, but I don't know London that well enough to grasp the situation, but The Guardian posted this video several days ago. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2013/nov/15/cyclist-london-cycle-superhighway-2-video 
Fragrag fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:As a method of transport, trams/streetcars do have higher capacity and use less power* than an equivalent bus, but that isn't the main reason why a lot of cities are pursuing them. Instead, it's using a form of transit that people find attractive, as a means of encouraging redevelopment. I know that in Portland and Seattle, at least, they've promoted their streetcar systems that way. Volmarias posted:I'd assume that given that they get their own dedicated right-of-way, they're going to be much less impacted by traffic than a bus would be. I think Hedera Helix had a really good observation- trams seem novel to communities that don't presently have them, and don't have the stigma of buses as a poor man's ride (yet). They fundamentally seem no different than buses, though, and just doesn't make sense. 
grover fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
grover posted:I think Hedera Helix had a really good observation- trams seem novel to communities that don't presently have them, and don't have the stigma of buses as a poor man's ride (yet). They fundamentally seem no different than buses, though, and just doesn't make sense. I think you put your finger on something there which does not really exist in many European countries - the poor/bus connection. At least, I've never experienced it, as a long-time bus rider in Sweden. Here, it's more a division between city-dwellers riding public transport and suburbanites (+country folk) driving cars. I think the bus stigma is part of the US fetischization of the car as a sign of affluence. Ninja edit: The above leads me to believe that the stigma could be overcome by simply making the public transit better, so more people will start using it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
Busses are hated because A) they replaced the street cars and were louder, uglier, more dangerous, and blew diesel exhaust in your face, and B) because mass transit has been completely ruined over the past 50 years that the only mass transit left are busses that are always late and run godawful routes that take 50 minutes to go 10 miles. The "POOR PEOPLE!!!" thing is mostly good ol american racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
But as soon as buses aren't that loud, dangerous, or 'ugly' anymore, because of better vehicles and driver training, those problems can be mitigated quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Apparently when the first carriage omnibus service was set up by Blaise Pascal (yes, the mathematician dude) way way way back in the day (17th century!) in Paris if I remember, it was supposed to be for poor people at first but then the fares got hiked and only the rich used it and then it petered out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 14:54
|
|
