Other Transit Techs « The Gondola Project

Other Transit Techs

23
Jan

2012

World’s Largest Bus – Youngman JNP6250G – 300 Persons

Youngman JNP6250G - world's largest bus in terms of capacity. 300 passengers.

In recent news, various news media outlets (1,2,3) have reported that we’re about to see the world’s largest bus - Youngman JNP6250G in China. The official statistical breakdown of this public transit behemoth is as follows:

300 person capacity (40 seats, 260 standing)
25 meters (standard bus: 12m)
top speed ~80kph

Of course, as soon as this news story went online, the classic age old debate of “my bus is bigger than your bus” soon emerged. The Brazilians and Swiss have chimed in and proved that their bi-articulated buses are similar in length if not longer than their Chinese competitors (Switzerland: 24.7m and Brazil: 28m). Despite such similar bus sizes, the Chinese bus somehow beats their challengers in terms of maximum capacity (300 persons vs the 128 person capacity in Switzerland and 250 person capacity in Brazil). My initial guess for this discrepancy is that loading standards vary dramatically country by country.

28m bi-articulated bus in Curitiba. Image by Chinadaily.

Nevertheless, given the enormous capacity of these buses, it appears that it begins to challenge those coveted numbers seen in LRT systems. Let’s do a quick comparison:

Melbourne’s Bombardier Flexity Swift LRV: 150
Minneapolis’ Bombardier Flexity Swift LR: 180
Calgary Siemens SD160NG: 226

If we directly compared these figures, the Youngman bus holds up to 2x the number of passengers in the Melbourne LRVs.

So I understand that capacity is not the only thing important in building better and faster rapid transit networks. However, since we’re now able to manufacture such large functional modern buses and assuming building BRT infrastructure is more cost-effective than LRT, what’s preventing us from pursuing such transit initiatives in North America? Aesthetics? Comfort? Pride? Environmental concerns?

Comments

06
Dec

2011

One of the Best Analyses of PRT You’ll Ever See

Image via swiftprt.com.

We here at The Gondola Project tend to be a pretty open-minded group of individuals with our readership generally following suit. We’re not, however, slaves to fads or trends. When we look at new ideas, innovations and technologies, we try our very best to be objective and analytical about them (but appreciate and love the craziness of things like the Chinese Tunnel Bus™).

We approach things from a position of empirical skepticism. We need to see that something can actually work - or at the very least, that the theory and logic underpinning a concept makes sound and reasonable sense. As a result, we’ve tended not to have a fondness for the mythologized panacea of the public transportation world; Personal Rapid Transit (check here and here for two of our more interesting debates with PRT advocates).

The fundamental logic behind PRT is quite simply flawed with most advocates of the technology blind to the economic and technological limitations of it. But that doesn’t prevent it from being continually trotted out as transportation messiah.

That’s why the work of blogger and researcher Apatzer is so fascinating.

Over at a brand new site called Swiftprt.com Apatzer meticulously (and sometimes exhaustingly) details the 6 months he spent researching and coding a simulated PRT network to investigate the technology’s feasibility.

His basic findings are that PRT is financially unfeasible; is incapable of providing the needed capacity in dense urban environments; and cannot provide the time savings over the private automobile typically sold by PRT advocates and companies.

I won’t go through his entire analysis as that would take about as long as it took him to do his study. As such, it’s hard for us to say whether his work is “right” or “wrong.” But for anyone interested in PRT as a viable urban transportation solution, they should spend a serious amount of time and energy exploring his work.

Personal Rapid Transit

Comments

21
Sep

2011

Groningen, Bicycle Capital of the World

Bicycle parking stall outside Groningen Main Station. Image by flickr user Daniel Sparing.

Yesterday we had a quick little contest to see how many people could name the city in the western world with the highest percentage of cyclists. The answer was . . .

Bicycles / Contests

Comments

30
Aug

2011

Medellin to Build Two Urban Gondolas – Integrated Into A Light Rail Line!

Metro Medellin's planned LRT/Tram line (in green) and two new Metrocable lines (in Purple and Pink).

Metro de Medellin is in no rush to slow down.

The transit agency of this Colombian metropolis has been expanding their public transportation system at breakneck speeds for the past 15 years and things just continue apace.

The agency recently released plans for their Corredores Verdes (Green Corridor) Light Rail/Tram plan. Their approach is a three-pronged strategy to connect the western district of the city with downtown and includes:

An ~ 5 km long LRT/Tram system with 8 stops that terminates/originates at the central San Antonio Metro station. The connection to San Antonio will allow easy transfers to both Linea A and Linea B of their impeccably-operated elevated metro system.

Two Urban Gondola lines (Metrocables) serving hillside barrios. The lines will be ~ 1.5 km long and have three total stations each (two terminals and one intermediary station).

Of particular note is Medellin’s approach to ticketing along the route. If the agency’s promotional video is to be believed, the LRT system will adopt a technique created and popularized by Curitiba’s famed BRT system.

Rather than have LRT drivers deal with ticketing, on-vehicle ticketing agents or a policed honor-system, enclosed station platforms will be equipped with turnstiles allowing for people to pay their fare prior to queueing for the tram. This approach speeds boarding and increases efficiency dramatically:

Curitiba's BRT system - the first to pioneer enclosed platforms at street level with ticketing and turnstile features. Image via Wikipedia.

Medellin's planned LRT system appears to borrow the ticketing approach used by Curitiba. Image via Metro de Medellin.

Metro de Medellin is quickly gaining a reputation for being one of the most innovative transit planning bodies on the planet and this project should only solidify that reputation.

The agency is a poster-child for multi-modality and non-conventional thinking. With Medellin’s recent acquisition and expansion of the Metroplus bus service combined with the addition of the LRT/Tram, this agency will soon seamlessly blend four separate technology modes (Metro, LRT/Tram, Urban Gondola and BRT) in order to provide public transportation for 2.5 million people.

This is how you do multi-modality:

Light Rail & Streetcars / Medellin MetroCable

Comments

16
Aug

2011

Luminus via Tractus by Steven Dale

Rendering of the under-construction Blue Light Rail line in Lagos, Nigeria. Image via Nairaland.com.

Remember: Light Rail Transit (LRT) isn’t always Light Rail Transit. And that goes for all forms of public transportation.

Anyone recall our CPT / ART debate?

While we may like to pretend we work and live in a scientific field, the world of city-building and transit is anything but scientific.After all, there’s no official taxonomy of public transit technologies and I doubt we’ll see one anytime soon. (Note: While Vukan Vuchic’s Urban Transit textbooks have helped a lot in resolving this issue, even he admits to the slipperiness of transit vehicle definitions.)

Maybe we need a more defined definition of Light Rail Transit (Luminus via Tractus perhaps?), but until that time comes it’s important for everyone understand that the definition of a public transit technology isn’t arbitrary and objective – it’s subjective and as much about marketing as it is about anything else.

Consider the under-construction Blue LRT line in Lagos, Nigeria.

This system has confused more than a few people as all estimates of ridership suggest something far more robust than LRT (Yonah Freemark hints at this confusion in a post from a couple years back). From a technology perspective it’s virtually impossible to imagine any single LRT system carrying half a million riders per day (as this Lagos State Government document suggests), yet all the imagery (see above for example) and reports (see previous link for example) categorically reinforce the idea that Lagos’ first urban rail line is to be LRT in nature.

But it’s not. And we know that because of this:

Last week Railways Africa reported that Lagos state governor Babatunde Fashola has visited Toronto, Canada and is prepared to purchase a fleet of 15-year-old decommissioned subway cars in order to service the “light rail project.” The subway cars in question look like this:

"Light" Rail. Image by flickr user Loozrboy.

This is Heavy Rail Transit (HRT). Or Subway Transit. Or Metro Transit. Or Whatever You Want To Call It Transit (WYWTCIT) – but it’s clearly not Light Rail. There’s obviously a disconnect here between one person’s definition of Light Rail and another people’s definition.

That’s not to suggest nefarious doings or shenanigans on the part of anyone. It’s just to point out that when you read statistics about any given transportation technology, it’s important to consider the lens with which those statistics are being viewed through.

Calling Heavy Rail “light” doesn’t make it weigh any less.

Bukit Panjang LRT / Light Rail & Streetcars

Comments

15
Aug

2011

CABLEGRAPH: High Speed Rail

Cablegraphs / High Speed Rail / High Speed Rail

Comment

14
Aug

2011

Sunday Statshot with Nick Chu: Public Transport Profitability – Hong Kong’s MTR (Mass Transit Railway)

Hong Kong's density is a little like New York's... except it's on roids. Image Flickr user by Brad-514.

In terms of financial viability, public transportation in North America is a perpetual loser. However, rumours have it that some transit agencies abroad break even or even make a profit. So let us take a closer look into one of these transit agencies – Hong Kong’s MTR (Mass Transit Railway) – and see if its profitability scheme could work in your city:

Hong Kong’s population: 7 million

Year MTR was established: 1979

Kilometers of rail in 1984: 66

In 2004: 255

Daily ridership in 2011: 4 million

Percentage of public transport trips taken on MTR: 42

Average fare increase of MTR since 1979: 5.6% per annum

Average growth rate of Consumer Price Index: 5.6% per annum

Percentage more high depreciation and financing costs are compared to recurrent operating costs: 25

Percentage increase in MTR’s non-fare revenue (i.e. developing and enhancing commercial activities) for past 20 years: 50

Percentage of total operating costs due to high depreciation and financial burden of recent/new rail projects: 50

Percentage of railway operating revenue derived from: 1) property development profit and; 2) rental and management income: 50

Percentage of MTR’s profits (before tax) generated by: 1) property development profit and; 2) rental and management income: 90 *

Per-unit operating cost before depreciation and interest of Hong Kong’s KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) bus operations: HK$0.10 per passenger space-km

MTR: HK$0.09 per passenger space-km

Operating Cost after depreciation and interest for KMB: HK$0.12

MTR: HK$0.18 * (explanation below)

Indirect subsidies available to MTR: Granted exclusive right to real estate property development above railway stations **

Cost of 1200 square foot “old” apartment unit: USD $1.9 million

Cost per square foot of “top” end properties: $10,500

Percentage more costly compared to London, New York and Moscow: 40

Population density: 6,500 persons per square kilometer

Most densely population district in Hong Kong: Kwun Tong

Population density: 53,110 persons per square kilometer

* While the government builds and maintains roads at no cost to bus operators (i.e. bus operating companies use roads for free), MTR funds, builds and owns the railway infrastructure/assets. As such, the operating cost after depreciation and interest for rail operations are always higher than bus operations.

** The local government in Hong Kong virtually owns all land. Given MRT’s exclusive property rights given to them by the government, MRT does not need to go through public auction as is normal for land sale in Hong Kong. Instead, MTR pays a premium that’s determined through negotiations and they earn development profits that payback rail investments. In other words, without development rights above railway stations, MTR is unable to earn a viable return.

Economics / Heavy Rail / Sunday Statshot

Comments

The Gondola Project