06
Sep

2010

Elevated Beauty

Chicago's 'L' elevated subway system is one of the most well-known elevated subway systems in the western world. Image by clarkmaxwell.

Elevated roadways, busways, light rail lines, subways, automated people movers and cable cars are far cheaper to build than underground systems. They’re not as cost-effective as street-level systems, but street level systems are subject to all the whims and unpredictability of intermingling with other forms of traffic.

Problem is, most architects, urban designers and politicians will complain about elevated systems as an eyesore; detrimental to the urban fabric. It’s an argument that has little merit, least of all because they have so little evidence of it.

They’ve seen how ugly, elevated infrastructure can abuse a neighborhood and have decided (yes, decided) that all forms of elevated infrastructure are ugly and abusive. It demonstrates just how little imagination and creativity our existing planning regimes possess.

Just because most elevated infrastructure is ugly doesn’t mean it must be ugly. At worst, ugly is a choice. At best, ugly is an opportunity to be beautiful.

An ancient Roman Aqueduct in Segovia, Spain. Image by Éole.

See what I mean?

05
Sep

2010

Sunday Morning Statshot

A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THE STATISTICS THAT MAKE YOUR CITIES WORK (OR NOT):

Portugal’s version of Jane Jacob’s “Eyes on the Street”: Senioritas

Traffic fatality rates in Bronx, NY: 4 per 100,000

Traffic fatality rates in Kansas: 40 per 100,000

Traffic fatality rates in smart-growth, transit-oriented centres: 1/4 of sprawling centres

Number of transit riders each day in San Francisco: 500,000

Number of solo automobile drivers: 3.5 million

Transport typology with the least involvement and contribution to traffic accidents in Mumbai: Auto-Rickshaws

Percent less emissions an auto-rickshaw produces compared to a car: 78%

Number of Metropass (Transit Pass) users in Toronto: 250,000

Cost of Metropass: $121

Cost of Washington’s travel pass: $188

Cost of Boston’s subway pass: $59

Ridership on Lodi, California’s public transit system on Sunday: 90

Subsidy per trip: $6.45

Ad-Hoc TTC entertainment: Subway Shakespeare

American households owning a vehicle by 1930: 3/4

% of homes in LA that were detached structures in 1930: 94

% of homes in New York, Chicago and Boston that were detached structures in 1930: 50

Environmental problem in Western Society: Low Density Urban Sprawl

Environmental problem in Chinese Society: Vertical High Density Urban Sprawl

Largest fleet of double-decker trams in the world: Hong Kong

Number of double-decker trams in operation: 163

Cost of tram ride compared to bus: 50% less

Size of cheapest flat in Hong Kong’s Kwun Hei Court, Hong Kong: 200 sq ft

Cost: $450,000 HK ($60,000 CAD)

Number of young HK professionals applying to public housing flats in 2006: 13,400

Number of young HK professionals applying to public housing flats in 2010: 21,300

% of all trips made on public transit in Hong Kong: 90

Weight loss from riding Charlotte’s Lynx LRT: 6.5 pounds

% less likely to be overweight: 81

Kim Jong Ils favourite transportation typology: Bullet proof train

Shanghai Daredevil: I thought it would be interesting, so I wanted to do it.


04
Sep

2010

The Fantasticable

It ain’t cable transit, but who cares? You know you’d ride it if you had the chance.
Presenting, the Fantasticable:

03
Sep

2010

50 Percent Less

A thought experiment:

What if you took anywhere from one third to one half of the commuters off the road each and every workday? How would that change things?

Well for starters, your commute would be far more pleasant, whether you were a driver or not. Congestion and delays wouldn’t be nearly as harsh as they are today. If you were a transit rider, you might even get a seat on the subway.

Fifty  years ago that would’ve been the case. After all, back then only one person commuted to work in a formal workplace. He – of course – was the breadwinner, but the housewife provided labour in an informal economy of child-rearing, food preparation, tailoring and perhaps a small home-based business making and selling what-have-yous.

And remember: That informal economy was impossible to track and thus, tax free.

That’s not to say that a woman’s place is in the home. Far from it. It’s just to say that maybe the home is the place for half of a household’s economic activity, whether it’s generated by man or woman.

Were that the case, we’d have a lot fewer cars on the road and riders on the subway.

Maybe our traffic and transit problems have nothing to do with roads and wheels and rights-of-way. Maybe traffic isn’t the horrible disease we make it out to be. Maybe it’s the symptom of something far more troublesome than itself.

If so, we’ve got to stop worrying about the symptom and go after the disease directly, whatever it may be.

02
Sep

2010

What’s The Problem?

We live in a marketplace of ideas, and right now cars win because that idea is better than what public transit has on offer. It isn’t better for everyone, but it’s better for most. That might change in the future, but right now, that’s the game.

You want to get people out of their cars? Provide a better alternative, full stop. That doesn’t (necessarily) mean cable, it just means provide something that’s cheaper, more pleasant and more convenient than the private automobile. The technology/mode choice is somewhat irrelevant. Just do one small thing right.

Or design your cities so you don’t need public transit or the private automobile (unlikely, and a matter for a post in the future).

For the last generation we’ve been building transit lines ad nauseam in North America and little’s changed (to a lesser extent, the same holds for Europe). Car use increases, transit ridership stagnates (or decreases), communities sprawl and commute times increase. Traffic and delays have only gotten worse.

There’s a problem here and same-old-same-old solutions aren’t working. Until we’re willing to admit that, nothing’s likely to change.

01
Sep

2010

Palmylink Update

Conceptual picture of Palmylink's Park Street Terminal; note the adjoining buildings, a proposed mix of commercial and residential apartments.

The following is an update on the Palmylink gondola proposal by Ryan O’Connor, the promotor and champion of Palmylink.

Palmylink is a proposed 3.2km aerial ropeway system and transit orientated development (TOD) in Palmerston North, Zealand. It is to link the Central Business District and Massey University. It would have 4 terminal stations (one of multiple possible configurations). The expected cost of the system was $NZ40 – $50 million (US$28 – 35 million). It has a proposed capacity of around 1,500 pphpd.  A visualization can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6nCoRlQCsE or www.palmylink.org.nz.

On the 12th of May, 2010, Palmylink was presented to a Palmerston North City Council, Massey University and other stakeholders at a Council initiated workshop. The Palmylink team was multidisciplinary and represented the fields of urban design, transportation, planning, project management and land development, with representatives from well respected companies including Beca Consultants, Common Ground, Landlink and Creative Urban Projects.

Palmerston North is a city of 80,000 people. It has a large tertiary education population; the majority being staff and students at Massey University (14,000). This results in the university being the largest traffic generator in the city. The vast majority of the population is located on the north side of a major river in the city, while the university is located on the south side of the river on the fringe of the urban area. The road connecting the city and university is a key arterial route and is limited to four road lanes and bridge. All north-south bound traffic is confined to this route as the bridge acts as a ‘funnel point’.

Conceptual picture of the Massey Terminal. The station is positioned about 1 minutes walk from the very centre of the Campus.

The transport case for an aerial ropeway was:

  • 12,000 people travel to Massey University (Turitea Campus) daily, along a single corridor. This number was set to increase as a proposed merger of Hokowhitu Campus would add a student/staff population of 1,200 to the Turitea Campus of 11,900.
  • Around 1,000 students live on the Turitea Campus and require frequent access to the CBD.
  • The Turitea Campus currently has around 11,500 traffic movements a day (this includes buses and private vehicles, but not pedestrians and cyclists); these movements are dispersed throughout the day.
  • Student distribution maps indicated a large number of commuters live in close proximity to the route.
  • A density analysis put around 6,000 people within walking distance (800m) of one of the proposed terminal sites. Other proposed terminal sites had lesser, but significant numbers.
  • The road corridor was close to congestion point (forecasted to occur in 2012). This would continue to worsen due to a range of factors. At the bridge, traffic counts were estimated at 33,000 vpd in 2006.
  • Palmylink’s estimates were that 28% of all traffic along the route was Turitea Campus related traffic.
  • The ability for roading upgrades was limited due to physical and natural constraints, ‘ground based’ transit options restricted valuable road space.
  • Traffic modeling previously done in a previous roading transport study (not by Palmylink) indicated a proposed second NZ$50 (US$39) million bridge upstream and associated roading upgrades would not alleviate congestion problems, just provide temporary relief on the route.
  • A ropeway provided significant benefits over the existing ‘fully subsided’ bus service, in particular frequency and reliability, but also average speed. Over 30% of all students were frequent passengers of the service.
  • The shear economies of scale resultant of the ridership catchment allowed for public transport prices for pass holders.
  • It was considered that Palmylink was a ‘future proof’ solution to the significant transport corridor.

Student Distribution Maps indicates that many students (commuters) live in proximity of the Palmylink route (in green). The green arrow demonstrates that a clustering effect could occur over time. Map sourced from an Opus Massey University Palmerston North Transport Study (2006), our diagram is overlaid.

The proposal also proposed strategic residential densification and commercial activities in and around terminal stations in line with TOD principles. It is envisioned that Palmylink could transform a low density residential environment into a vibrant mixed use urban environment. Over time, land could be densified around stations in clusters or in a ‘ribbon’ type development along the route. There were pockets of vacant or underdeveloped land in proximity to the system, much owned by the stakeholders. These TOD opportunities are where a business case could be developed. Put simply, the Palmylink team sought to ‘internalize’ external benefits associated with the development in partnership with the stakeholders.

Traditionally (with exceptions), transit feasibility has primarily been based on ridership projections and fare-box recovery. External benefits are rarely monetized or captured, despite these benefits usually dwarfing the internal cashflows of transit systems – especially in regards to land price increase and development opportunities. These benefits tend to develop around ‘high-end’ urban transit systems, and rarely bus systems. Economic benefits are usually captured by the landowners in proximity to the route, not the transport infrastructure that fosters the positive change in the first place. The full public benefit cannot be realized when this occurs. This is a fundamental flaw when comparing and undertaking feasibility on transport infrastructure; but it also poses an opportunity to do things differently. Some of these benefits can be captured, and this is what Palmylink sought to do.

The Palmylink team formulated that a mixture of residential and commercial development, advertising opportunities, capturing land price increases, and transfer of existing subsides and funding could easily provide enough scope to create an investor proposition. Murali Gopalan of Palmylink identified also an opportunity to utilize locally generated electricity from a nearby landfill (methane) gas electric generator. Critically, to realize these opportunities we required the assistance and commitment of stakeholders, in particular the city authorities and the university i.e. aligning planning regulations and policy amongst other mechanisms. The stakeholders made profitable returns possible for an investor, as well as reducing risk. This is why we approached them first to gather support for the proposal; the second stage was to approach investors.  At that point further studies could be commissioned.

Potential route alignment options indentified. The visualization and primary proposal is based on the Fitzherbert route (shown in the dark green). The blue route alignment is a possible Cook Street alignment, and the light green route is a potential Massey extension, proving access to large area of undeveloped Massey University owned land. The orange areas on the map show vacant land that could potentially be developed in conjunction of the system. Underlying map is from Google Maps.

Despite a positive, but cautious response from stakeholders at the workshop, for reasons we have not been able to fully understand, the project has been put on the political ’back burner’ – possibly because a local election is approaching. Council voted that ‘no action be taken at this time’. We weren’t helped by misinformation in the local media and poor Council staff reporting. An opinion poll undertaken by the local media (with a 500+ sample) found that 56% of people in favor of Palmylink proposal.

With the benefit of hindsight, the complexity of our business case perhaps proved to be a barrier, as opposed to a driver to the cause. It was comprehensive – the cost benefit analysis has around 60 variables and the reports totaled 150 pages. This level of complexity requires a sufficient review to make an informed decision on how to progress; this is yet to be undertaken. The idea of ropeways in urban environments for public transit is still foreign to many despite their benefits in certain applications; breaking down the existing perceptions was half the challenge for the team.

The seed has been firmly planted with Palmylink; we are currently assessing our options going forward and welcome interest from outside individuals.

This guest post was written by Ryan O’Connor of Wellington, New Zealand. He is urban planner with interests in innovation, transportation, land development, project management and business. He has expertise in cable propelled transit technologies, in particular aerial ropeways, and their applications to urban transit markets after several years research on the matter. He is the originator and developer of the Palmylink proposal.

For further information – please contact ryan@palmylink.org.nz.

31
Aug

2010

Cable Splicing

Last week’s post about six common uses for steel cables generated significant conversation and questions about the cables themselves. One question that was not asked, however, was how a company goes about splicing the two ends of a cable into one continuous loop.

I’m told this is one of the most impressive aspects of a cable system’s installation and is something I, myself have never witnessed. Only a handful of people worldwide are licensed to do this incredibly specialized operation. This multi-day operation involves a team of individuals untwisting tens of metres of steel cable and then re-twisting and welding the two ends together at regular intervals in order to complete one single complete loop.

It is also this section of cable that is the most vulnerable to damage, thus the specialized nature of the operation.

For a great insight into this, check out Lift Wold’s cable splicing photo essay to see a cable splice, step-by-step.

Pretty impressive stuff.